Skip to main content

Full text of "Bible witness and review for the presentation and defence of revealed truth"

See other formats



,1  t\u  ®hfo%,V«,  ^ 

PRINCETON.    N.    J. 

Division S.        _|   - .        _  _  — 

Section /... 

Shelf. Number 

(7.  ^- — 

'^■^^  !: 

■  :•  ■  \- 




.  ^  V  ^ 

.»•    ■•'5        •. 




E/'s  a.'rro'Koyiav  rou  ivayyi^.m  xs^xa/ 
Phil.  L  17 





,htC.  MAR18b2 



The  Feasts  of  Jehovah. — Lectures  on  Lev.  xxiit.    .  .  i 

The  Olive  Tree,  Fig  Tree,  and  the  Vine      ...  49 

Union  in  Incarnation  the  Root-Error  of  Modern  Theology  55 

Scriptural  Unity  and  Union  .  .  .  .  76 

Have  wb-a  Revelation  from  God  ?    .  .  .  .         loi 

Christological  Pantheism      .  .  .  .  .         193 

The  Church  and  its  Privileges         .  .  ,  .240 

The  Bearing  of  1  Peter  il  24  .  ,  .251 

Biblical  Annotations  .  .  .  .  .         2G2 

Epistolary  Communications    .  .  .  .  .364 


htC.  iVlABl882 




The  Sabbath,  the  Passovee,  and  Unleavened  Bread. 

Lev.  XXIII.  1-8. 

It  is  my  hope  to  bring  before  you,  in  the  Scripture  we  have 
entered  on  to-night,  the  whole  outline  of  the  dealings  of  God 
with  His  people  on  earth,  not  of  course  in  detail,  but,  first,  the 
original  purpose  as  before  God  ;  next,  the  foundation  which  He 
laid  in  order  to  accomplish  this  purpose  ;  then,  again,  the  ways 
of  God  in  the  application  which  He  made  of  the  mighty  work 
thus  accomplished  ;  and,  finally,  the  direct  and  full  result. 

It  will  be  proved  in  the  course  of  these  remarks  that  God  did 
reaUy  look  forward  far  beyond  His  ancient  people.  These  feasts 
had  a  simple  and  primary  application,  as  no  one  doubts,  to  the 
Jewish  people  ;  they,  at  any  rate  the  chief  of  them,  served  the 
purpose  of  gathering  Israel  around  Himself  where  He  had 
placed  His  name.  But  it  is  impossible  to  limit  Scripture  to 
such  an  application.  I  hope  to  give  you  what  the  Holy  Ghost 
contemplates  in  the  types ;  for  God  was  looking  on  to  other 
things,  and  far  greater  than  men  are  apt  to  allow.  All  was 
future  in  this  point  of  view  ;  and  even  now  we  may  see  what 
will  be,  as  well  as  that  which  is,  and  what  has  been  accom- 
plished. He  has  anticipated  that  which  would  have  an  entirely 
different  and  superior  character,  indeed  what  we  commonly  call 
Christianity ;  He  removes  the  veil  from  the  age  to  come  when 
He  will  establish  the  kingdom  in  glory.  Thus  we  shall  be  able 
to  trace  the  dealings  of  God,  first,  not  merely  in  letter  but  in 
grace,  and  then,  when  it  will  be  no  longer  grace  but  glory,  and 



that  not  only  for  heaven,  hut  mainly  for  the  earth.  It  is  quite 
a  mistake  to  suppose  that  His  glory  is  connected  only  with 
heaven.  Undoubtedly  He  has  allowed  Satan  to  do  his  worst, 
but  He  has  already  M'on  the  victory  morally  in  Christ,  and 
efficaciously  in  His  death  and  resurrection  ;  and  He  will  prove 
it  before  every  eye  in  a  day  fast  approaching.  But  now  we 
walk  by  faith,  not  by  sight,  and  I  trust  that  the  Scripture  thus 
brought  before  us  may  contribute  to  strengthen  the  faith  of  those 
who  believe,  as  well  as  to  rebuke  those  who  dare  to  disbelieve, 
the  word  of  God. 

L  The  Sabbath. 

The  first  thing  I  would  draw  your  attention  to  is  this,  that 
the  Sabbath  is  introduced  in  an  altogether  peculiar  manner. 

This  is  no  mere  idea  of  mine,  nor  of  any  one  else.  It  is 
marked  very  clearly  in  the  opening  of  the  chapter  before  us. 

"And  Jehovah  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the 
children  of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them,  concerning  the  feasts  of 
Jehovah,  which  ye  shall  proclaim  to  be  holy  convocations,  even 
these  are  My  feasts.  Six  daj'S  shall  work  be  done  ;  but  the 
seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  rest,  an  holy  convocation ;  ye 
shall  do  no  work  therein  ;  it  is  the  Sabbath  of  Jehovah  in  all 
your  dwellings."  Thus  the  feasts  open  ;  but  let  us  notice  that 
the  fourth  verse  begins  again,  "  These  are  the  feasts  of  Jehovah." 
Hence  we  see  that  in  the  beginning  of  the  chapter,  where  the 
feasts  are  introduced  generally,  the  Sabbath  is  named  in  par- 
ticular ;  next,  in  verse  fourth,  there  is  a  fresh  beginning, 
which  excludes  the  Sabbath.  Now  there  is  nothing  in  vain  in 
Scripture ;  not  a  word  from  Genesis  to  Revelation  which  God 
wrote  could  be  changed  but  for  the  worse.  I  know  certain 
minds  find  this  diflicult  to  believe  ;  and  the  reason  is  because 
they  judge  of  God  by  themselves.  If  you  or  I  had  written  it, 
there  would  have  been  many  a  word  to  change  for  the  better  ; 
and  we  are  apt  to  attribute  our  infirmities  to  God's  word.     No 


man  can  riglitly  reason  on  God's  word  from  himself ;  nor  is 
it  sound  to  reason  from  nature  up  to  nature's  God.  We 
must  begin  with  God,  and  reason  from  Him,  or  His  word, 
down  to  His  works.  If  we  begin  with  what  we  find  in  reason 
or  things  here  below,  we  begin  with  what  is  frail,  feeble,  incon- 
stant ;  and  how  can  we  reason  soundly  when  we  start  from  that 
which  breaks  at  the  touch  ?  When  w^e  begin  with  God  and 
His  word,  we  are  guided  by  that  which  judges  all  around. 
But  the  tendency  of  men  is  to  take  on  them  to  judge  the  word 
of  God  :  did  they  believe  that  the  word  of  God  judges  them,  it 
would  be  safer  and  more  becoming. 

Now  if  God  has  given  a  revelation  of  His  mind,  that  revela- 
tion must  be  worthy  of  Himself;  and  He  has  taken  particular 
pains  to  call  it  His  word.  Undoubtedly  He  wrought  by  various 
means  ;  but  He  never  calls  it  the  word  of  Moses,  or  David,  or 
John,  or  Paul,  but  the  word  of  God.  Let  us  never  forget  this. 
It  may  be  said  that  there  is  here  a  difficulty,  and  what  appears 
even  to  be  an  irregularity.  The  Sabbath  is  introduced  first  as 
the  beginning  of  the  feasts  ;  and  then,  secondly,  we  begin  again, 
when  the  Sabbath  is  left  out.  Why  ?  Because  the  Sabbath  has 
a  character  altogether  peculiar  to  itself.  Evidently  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  and  merely  looking  at  it  from  a  literal  point  of  view,  all  the 
other  feasts  were  celebrated  but  once  a  year,  the  Sabbath  every 
week.  There  is  therefore  a  distinct  line  of  demarcation ;  and  so 
the  second  beginning  is  justified.  But  still  the  Sabbath  has  the 
character  of  a  feast,  and  with  a  most  important  aim,  if  in  a 
way  that  marks  no  other  ;  for  that  feast,  and  that  alone,  was  to 
be  continually  repeated,  as  the  end  of  the  week  came  round. 

And  here  let  us  not  fail  to  notice  the  difference  between  this 
and  what  Scripture  calls  "  the  Lord's  day."  Those  who  would 
and  do  confound  the  two  understand  neither.  The  Sabbath 
day  was  historically  and  originally  at  the  end  of  the  week,  when 
man  had  accomplished  his  ordinary  round  of  toil.  The  end  lie 
gave  to  God.  He  had  laboured  Himself  for  six  days,  on  the 
seventh  He  rested.    According  to  God's  law,  it  was  not  merely 


Ob  seventh,  but  tlie  seventh  day.  No  other  day  of  the  week 
would  have  done  so  well,  or  at  all,  if  one  looked  at  it  as  truly 
fearing  God.  From  an  utilitarian  point  of  view,  one  day  was  as 
good  as  another  ;  and  that  is  man's  way  of  dealing  with  things. 
But  God  knows  that  man  is  prone  to  forget  Him  even  in  crea- 
tion, and  above  all  to  forget  the  gracious  purposes  of  God 
pledged  in  the  Sabbath. 

AVhat  is  it  that  God  means  to  bring  in  ?  A  rest  for  His  own, 
a  rest  worthy  of  Himself,  and  a  rest  which  He  will  share  with 
His  people.  AVhen  will  this  be  ?  Not  till  the  end  of  all  things. 
I  am  far  from  meaning  that  every  man  will  enjoy  that  rest.  No 
one  can  think  or  say  so  wlio  believes  what  sin  is,  or  that  God 
will  judge  the  world  by  the  INIan  risen  from  the  dead  and 
ordained  for  it.  But  while  acknowledging  that  God  must  show 
His  deep  resentment  against  evil,  m'c  believe  also  that  He  has 
brought  in  a  Deliverer  and  a  deliverance  for  us  ;  in  due  time  a 
full  and  a  perfect  deliverance  for  creation.  This  is  precisely 
what  God  will  make  good  in  the  day  of  Christ's  coming ;  and 
His  rest  it  will  be. 

Let  me  refer  here  to  the  great  New  Testament  Scripture  on 
the  rest  of  God,  In  Heb.  iii.  and  iv.  you  find  the  Spirit  of 
God  (after  pointing  to  Christ  on  high,  Sou  of  God,  and  Son  of 
man,  who  had  died  atoningly),  introducing  this  rest.  What  gave 
occasion  to  it  was  the  evident  danger  for  the  Hebrew  believers  of 
taking  their  ease  now,  and  thus  forgetting  they  were  only  pass- 
ing tlirough  the  wilderness.  They  were  so  accustomed  to  con- 
nect with  the  coming  of  jNIessiah  a  present  rest,  that  they  could 
hardly  understand  that  they  were  ushered  into  a  scene  of  trial 
answering  to  His  who  suffered  without  the  gate,  and  called  to 
count  it  their  privilege.  They  were  in  danger  of  seeking  to  make 
themseh'es  at  ease  and  comfortable  here.  The  first  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians  sliows  that  they  were  not  alone  in  this.  It  is  a 
very  natural  snare  to  the  heart  of  man,  even  to  those  who  have 
found  the  Saviour.  After  there  has  been  doubt  and  anxiety, 
the  soul  knowing  what  the  judgment  of  God  on  sin  is,  and  its 


own  utter  giiilt  and  condemnation,  when  deliverance  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  is  once  found,  there  is  often  danger  of  reaction.  The 
soul  is  apt  to  settle  down,'  thinking  that  the  campaign  is  over, 
because  the  great  battle  has  been  fought,  and  the  victory  is 
given  through  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  They  flatter  themselves" 
that  there  can  be  no  more  trouble,  because  the  deep  soul-distress 
is  past.  It  is  sufficiently  plain  that  these  Hebrews  were  in  some 
such  state,  and  the  apostle  not  only  reminds  them  how  joyfully 
they  took  their  early  spoliation  and  sufferings,  but  here  instructs 
them  that  they  are  not  yet  after  the  pattern  of  Israel  settled 
in  the  land,  but  like  Israel  passing  through  the  wilderness. 
Accordingly  w^e  find  that  the  w'hole  argument  of  the  epistle 
supposes  not  the  temple,  but  the  tabernacle,  from  first  to  last ; 
and  thus  hails  from  the  camp,  not  from  the  throne  or  kingdom 
set  up  after  the  conquest  of  Canaan.  Hence  he  says,  "  Let  us 
therefore  fear,  lest  a  promise  being  left  us  of  entering  into  his 
rest,  any  of  you  sliould  seem  to  come  short  of  it"  (ch.  iv.  1). 
We  see  at  once  that  the  apostle  is  not  speaking  of  believing 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  for  present  rest  of  conscience.  Had  this 
been  the  point  before  him,  he  would  have  boldly  assured 
them  there  was  no  need  to  fear. 

If  we  speak  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  then  should  exhort 
to  fear,  it  w^ould  be  the  denial  of  Christianity.  The  gospel  is 
the  declaration  of  full  remission,  yea,  of  more  than  this,  of  jus- 
tification, of  reconciliation  witli  God  through  the  Lord  Jesus. 
If  forgiveness  through  Christ's  blood  was  the  question,  he  would 
rather  call  on  them  to  vanquish  every  fear  ;  for,  as  the  apostle 
John  says,  in  discussing  that  point,  "  Perfect  love  casteth  out 
fear,"  not  "  perfect  love  "  on  our  j)art  (the  law  asked  for  that,  and 
never  could  get  it),  but  the  perfect  love  of  God,  which  is  only 
revealed  in  and  throucfh  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  "What  are  we 
to  be  afraid  of  then  ?  Not  of  the  blood  of  Christ  failing,  not  of 
losing  the  remission  of  sins  through  any  change  of  mind  or  at 
any  moment  from  grace  in  God.    But  be  afraid  of  settling  down 


in  this  world,  and  coming  short  of  the  true  outlook  of  pilgrims 
and  strangers  on  the  way  to  a  Ijetter  land.  To  have  rested  in 
the  wilderness  would  have  been  fatal  to  an  Israelite  ;  and  so  we 
have  to  remember  that  this  is  not  our  home,  and  that  to  settle 
down  would  be  virtually  to  deny  ourselves  the  rest  of  heaven. 

In  passing  let  me  remark  that  this  epistle  was  written  by 
the  apostle  Paul  and  no  one  else.  Men  may  question,  as  they 
do  everything  now-a-days,  but  there  is  no  real  ground  of  doubt- 
ing it.  For  Peter  proves  it  in  his  second  epistle,  where  he  says 
(chap.  iii.  15) — "  Even  as  our  beloved  brother  Paul  also,  accord- 
ing to  the  wisdom  given  unto  him,  hath  written  unto  you!' 
Now,  as  we  know,  he  was  then  addressing  believing  Jews  ;  so 
that  Paul  must  have  written  to  them  also,  and  this  can  be  only 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  I  refer  to  it  now,  simply  because 
Satan  is  trying  to  undermine  everything,  and  it  becomes  of 
growing  consequence  to  meet  lesser  questions,  as  well  as  daring 
attacks  on  the  word  of  God.  It  is  high  time  that  every  man 
who  is  by  grace  a  believer  should  declare  plainly  what  he  is. 
Does  His  goodness  not  claim  it  at  our  hands  to  be  confessors  if 
not  martyrs  % 

1  say  then,  that  in  this  epistle  the  Spirit  of  God  brings 
before  us  the  necessity  of  going  forward  to  the  rest  of  God  ; 
and  I  press  this  as  the  only  genuine  meaning,  because  it  is  often 
applied  to  soul  rest,  which  it  rather  tends  to  enfeeble  or  destroy. 
Tliat  it  is  not  within  the  scope  of  the  passage  in  the  text,  we 
may  see  from  verse  1],  where  it  says,  "Let  us  labour,  therefore, 
to  enter  into  that  rest."  AVhat  sort  of  a  gospel  would  it  be  to 
tell  people  they  must  labour  for  rest  of  conscience  ?  Evidently 
it  would  be  to  upset  the  gi'ace  of  God ;  for  it  means  no  other 
than  salvation  by  works.  On  the  face  of  it,  all  can  see  that  the 
apostle  here  is  addressing  such  Jews  as  professed  Christ,  and 
that  they  then  wore  in  danger  of  slipping  into  present  ease, 
instead  of  pressing  through  the  wilderness  world  on  their  way  to 
that  rest  of  God,  the  rest  of  His  glory. 


Do  not  suppose  that  I  deny  for  a  moment  that  there  is  in 
Christ  a  present  rest  for  faith.  The  Scriptures  speak  of  it 
plainly  : — "  Come  unto  Me,  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy 
laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest."  This  is  the  rest  of  grace  now, 
not  of  glory.  Then  there  is  something  farther  too  : — "  Take  my 
yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  Me  ;  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in 
heart ;  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto  your  souls."  First,  He  gives 
rest  unconditionally,  in  pure  sovereign  favour,  to  all  the  weary 
that  come  ;  and  then,  when  walking  in  the  path  of  submission 
to  Him  and  obedience,  the  faithful  find  rest.  For  if  one  is  dis- 
obedient, one  must  have  (as  John  says)  the  heart  ill  at  ease — it 
condemns  one ;  and,  then,  how  can  there  be  rest  ?  But  there 
remains  a  third  thing  :  not  only  rest  given  by  Christ  as  a  pre- 
sent relief  to  the  conscience,  and,  again,  true  rest  of  heart  found 
in  the  path  of  obedience  and  learning  of  Him  ;  but,  thirdly,  the 
rest  of  God  when  it  is  no  longer  a  question  of  man  and  sin 
and  self-will  and  misery,  but  all  the  chequered  scene  of  toil 
and  suffering  will  be  over,  when  Cod  will  rest  in  the  satisfaction 
of  His  own  love  and  glory,  having  brought  His  sons  and  people 
into  His  everlasting  rest. 

Doubtless,  as  the  apostle  argues,  God  gave  the  Sabbath  at 
the  beginning  ;  but  this  was  not  His  rest,  for  sin  spoiled  creation, 
and  He  says  afterwards,  "If  they  shall  enter  into  my  rest." 
"  If  "  implies  that  they  had  not  entered  it,  and  might  fail  also. 
So  again,  after  Joshua  (or  "  Jesus  ")  had  put  down  the  Canaanites 
(lie  never  completely  conquered  them),  after  Israel  had  settled 
themselves  in  the  land,  was  that  the  rest  of  God  ?  By  no  means ; 
for  the  Psalm  which  speaks  of  that  rest  w\as  written  long  after 
Adam  and  Joshua.  The  conclusion,  then,  is  that  "there  remaineth 
therefore  a  rest  {m^i^arieiiog,  a  keeping  of  sabbath)  to  the  people 
of  God."  Consequently  it  has  not  yet  come.  The  apostle  strength- 
ens this  from  another  principle,  namely,  that  one  cannot  be 
both  working  and  resting,  in  the  same  sense,  at  the  same  time. 
If  one  has  entered  into  rest,  one  has  done  with  works,  even  as  is 


said  of  God  Himself  (ver.  10).  But  the  bright  day  when  we 
shall  rest  is  not  yet  arrived.  So  that  he  is  exhorting  the 
saints  to  labour.  NoV)  is  the  time  for  work ;  and  every  one 
that  has  the  love  of  Christ  in  such  a  world  as  this  must  feel  it, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  there  is  sin  and  wretchedness  in  the 
world.  Divine  love,  whether  in  God  or  in  His  people,  refuses 
to  rest  in  the  midst  of  evil.  After  Christ  comes  this  will  not  be 
so.     "  There  remaineth  therefore  a  rest  to  the  people  of  God." 

It  is  not  the  same  principle  which  wx  find  in  the  Lord's 
day,  for  this  is  the  intervention  of  divine  power  in  the  resur- 
rection of  the  Lord  Jesus,  after  He  had  gone  down  into  death 
to  make  propitiation  for  our  sins  and  reconcile  us  ami  all  things 
to  God.  Consequently  the  Lord's  day  is  an  excellent  day  for 
spiritual  toil,  for  the  work  of  faith  and  the  labour  of  love  ;  and 
no  one  acquainted  with  Christ  would  think  it  wrong,  if  able,  to 
preach  a  dozen  sermons  on  that  day,  nor  to  take  a  dozen  Sab- 
bath-days' journeys  to  preach  them.  Were  it  the  Sabbath-day, 
he  could  not  do  so  lightly.  Thus  they  have  a  wholly  different 
character.  The  source,  nature,  and  end  of  the  Lord's  day  is 
marked  out  by  grace  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ  from  the  dead, 
as  the  Sabbath  is  by  creation  and  the  law  of  God. 

It  seemed  good  to  the  Lord  then,  and  it  is  necessary  for  man, 
that  there  should  be  first  the  great  truth  of  the  Sabbath  set 
forth  before  we  enter  on  the  ways  of  God.  Before  He  accom- 
plished the  mighty  work.  He  hung  out  clearly  and  distinctly 
this  initiatory  pledge  of  rest  at  the  end.  I  am  coming  to  have 
my  rest,  He  says,  but  not  to  have  it  alone :  you  shall  share  it  in 
glory  with  Me.  The  Sabbath  is  to  be  fulfilled  in  a  day  yet  to 
come ;  and  that  both  for  heaven  and  earth.  But  the  rest  is 
after  all  work  is  done,  whether  in  type  or  anti-type. 

II.  The  Passover. 

But  now  we  come  to  another  thing  :  God  laying  the  founda- 
tion of  it  all ;  and  mark  first,  lie  does  not  eifect  it  hastily.  There 


are  many  who  think  it  would  have  been  exceedingly  good  if  God 
had  at  the  beginning  given  His  Son  to  die  for  sinners.  Instead  of 
this  He  waited  for  4000  years.  Why  so  ?  In  the  word  we  get  the 
key  to  the  difficulty.  "  When  the  fulness  of  the  time  was  come, 
God  sent  forth  His  Son,"  etc.  It  was  not  on  the  first  day  of  the  . 
first  month  that  the  Passover  was  instituted,  that  great  stand- 
ing type  of  Christ  slain  for  sinners,  but  on  the  fourteenth  day. 
Was  not  God  in  this  delay  signifying  the  fulness  of  time  ? 

First,  He  leaves  man  to  his  own  way ;  and  then,  lest  man 
should  complain  that  he  had  gone  astray  because  abandoned  to 
himself,  God  took  him  in  hand  and  tried  him  under  law.  So  Israel, 
as  the  centre  of  mankind,  was  placed  under  His  government. 
What  was  the  result  ?  After  all  possible  pains  the  bad  tree  bore 
more  bad  fruit.  Israel  at  the  close  was  worse  than  at  the  beginning. 
The  end  of  man  was  the  Cross  of  Christ.  They  hated  the  Son  and 
the  Father.  Therefore  do  we  hear  of  Christ's  death  at  the  con- 
summation of  the  ages.  It  is  not  a  chronological  expression  ;  but 
God  had  tried  man  in  various  ways,  which  ended  in  nothing  but 
wickedness  and  ruin.  AVhat  does  God  do  then  ?  He  displaces 
man's  religion  and  his  failure  by  the  infinite  work  of  redemp- 
tion ;  and  this  is  what  we  have  in  the  Passover. 

Verse  5,  "  In  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month,  at  even, 
is  Jehovah's  passover."  What  was  the  great  principle  of  this 
feast  ?  God  had  come  down  to  deliver  His  people  from  the 
house  of  bondage.  It  was  not  because  of  any  good  in  them,  for 
the  children  of  Israel  at  that  time  were  worshipping  false  gods, 
and  were  utterly  indifferent  to  the  glory  of  the  True.  But  next, 
if  God  delivers  them,  He  must  deliver  them  righteously.  Pay 
particular  attention  to  this.  It  is  not  simply  a  question  of 
mercy  in  forgiving  those  who  are  wicked,  but  He  will  have  them 
before  Him  on  a  foundation  of  right.  He  is  a  just  God  and  a 
Saviour.  Hence  on  that  night  He  sent  through  the  land  a 
destroying  angel  to  avenge  sin.  It  was  judgment  of  evil,  and 
the   first  thing  done.     He  came  down  by  that  angel  to  deal 


with  whatever  was  offensive  to  His  character.  And  there  was 
but  one  thing  which  stayed  the  hand  of  the  destroying  angel. 
What  was  it  ?  The  blood  of  the  slain  lamb.  Wherever  it  was 
not  on  the  doorposts  or  upper  lintel,  death  reigned.  Not  that 
God  was  yet  judging  all  mankind.  It  was  a  sample,  which  tes- 
tified what  sin  deserved,  and  what  alone  could  screen  from  God's 
judgment.  God  declared,  in  that  blood  on  the  sprinkled  doorposts 
of  the  children  of  Israel,  that  death  only  could  stay  judgment. 

It  was  in  the  last  degree  solemn — the  lamb  judged  for  sin. 
But  what  M'ondrous  grace  !  Judgment  falling  on  the  lamb ;  not 
on  the  guilty,  but  on  their  substitute !  It  was  the  judgment  of 
God  because  of  our  sins  which  Christ  had  to  endure,  the  spotless 
Lamb  of  God.  What  was  it  made  the  Lord  Jesus  sweat,  as  it 
were,  great  drops  of  blood  ?  Was  it  the  mere  act  of  dying  ? 
This  would  lower  the  Lord  below  yourself  if  you  are  a  believer. 
Why,  a  Christian  rejoices  in  the  thought  of  departing  to  be  with 
Christ,  who  alone  suffered  and  died  for  our  sins. 

What  was  the  meaning  of  that  cry,  "  My  God,  my  God,  why 
hast  Thou  forsaken  me  ?"  It  was  the  judgTnent  of  sin  which 
then  fell  on  Christ.  It  was  not  what  the  Jews  did,  nor  Pontius 
Pilate,  nor  Herod,  nor  man  in  general  laid  on  Him.  I  know 
the  popular  hymn  says,  "  I  lay  my  sins  on  Jesus."  But  the 
truth  is  far  better  than  that :  God  laid  them  there.  If  it  had 
been  you  or  I  that  must  bring  our  sins  for  expiation,  we  might 
have  forgotten  many ;  but  Jehovah  laid  our  burden  on  Him. 
And  hence  the  Lord  suffered  on  the  Cross  as  never  did  before 
either  any  other  or  Himself.  For  if  He  had  been  bearing  sins 
aU.  His  life,  as  sofne  say,  either  He  must  have  been  forsaken  of 
God  all  His  life,  or  God  must  have  acted  as  if  sin  was  tolerable 
till  then.  Is  either  thought  true  ?  Neither  ;  indeed,  without 
even  an  appearance  of  truth.     Christ  suffered  once  for  sins. 

This  judgment  of  God  falling  on  the  Lamb  alone  explains 
what  sin  is  and  deserves  ;  and  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  on 
the   doors   answers   to   the  believer's   application  of   Christ's 


blood  by  faith  to  his  own  case.  In  this  and  this  alone  was 
seen  that  which  has  made  it  a  righteous  thing  to  put  away 
sin.  God's  judgment  fell  on  His  Son,  because  He  is  His  Lamb, 
who  was  able  to  bear  it.  The  blood  of  the  Lamb  is  the  witness 
of  the  judgment,  but  in  richest  fullest  grace  because  it  was  on . 
His  Son  it  fell.  This  was  God's  view  of  it ;  and  you  must  re- 
member that  in  these  types  we  are  considering  not  what  Moses 
or  others  understood,  but  what  God  said  and  faith  receives  in 
and  through  our  Lord  Jesus.  Do  you  ask  my  authority  for  all 
this  ?  Turn  to  1  Cor.  v.  7,  "  For  even  Christ,  our  Passover,  is 
sacrificed  for  us."  Is  not  this  ample  authority  ?  And  God  says 
this  to  those  who  had  been  Gentiles  and  now  were  His  church  ; 
for  He  was  looking  far  beyond  the  Jew  on  to  another  day,  and 
this  is  the  day  in  which  we  find  ourselves.  Christ's  death  is 
the  groundwork  of  all  our  blessing,  the  blood  of  the  slain  Lamb, 
the  Lamb  of  God  that  beareth  away  the  sin  of  the  world.  We 
may  see  too,  that  it  was  not  a  question  of  continuous  or  re- 
peated offering ;  as  the  apostle  argues  in  Heb.  ix.  26,  "  For  now 
once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  He  appeared  to  put  away  sin 
by  the  sacrifice  of  Himself"  Further,  "  He  bore,"  as  Peter  says, 
"  our  sins  in  His  own  body  on  the  tree."  The  consequence  of  His 
work  is  perfect  peace  to  the  believer.  If  it  were  continually 
going  on,  one  could,  one  ought,  never  to  have  settled  peace. 
The  perfect  efficacy  goes  with  the  singleness  of  Christ's  offering, 
through  righteousness  as  the  apostle  teaches  in  Rom.  v. 

III.  The  Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread. 

But  there  is  another  feature  to  be  noticed.  The  Passover 
was  followed  immediately  by  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread. 
There  was  not  a  single  day  that  intervened. 

Now,  as  an  ordinary  rule,  there  was  a  space  between  these 
different  feasts  ;  but  here  is  an  exception  to  the  rule.  And  let 
me  ask  you,  who  could,  save  by  God's  power,  have  appreciated 
the  force  of  this  beforehand  ?     Now  that  it  is  revealed,  we  may 


follow.  Like  JMoses  from  the  cleft  of  the  rock,  one  cau  see  Him 
as  He  passes  before  us ;  but  who  can  go  before  Him  ?  The 
Passover  was  followed  immediately  by  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread.  There  was  not  the  lapse  of  a  day  between  them — one 
being  on  the  fourteenth,  the  other  on  the  fifteenth,  day  of  the 
same  month.  Indeed,  as  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  in 
the  N'ew  Testament  is  treated  as  beginning  with  the  killing  of 
the  paschal  lamb,  the  immediate  response  of  the  Christian  to 
Christ's  blood  is  to  walk  in  holiness.  God  will  not  have  him  to 
take  a  single  day  to  himself.  At  once  he  is  called  by  the  grace 
of  God  to  own  himself  responsible  to  put  away  all  leaven.  We 
know  from  1  Cor.  v.  that  leaven  is  symbolic  of  corruption. 
Yer.  7  :  "  For  even  Christ,  our  Passover,  is  sacrificed  for  us  ; 
therefore  let  us  keep  the  feast."  What  feast  ?  The  Passover  ? 
No  ;  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread. 

This  feast,  again,  we  see,  is  not  like  the  Passover ;  for  one 
day  was  to  be  kept  in  the  latter  case,  seven  days  in  the  former. 
I  may  assume  that  all  here  who  have  read  their  Bibles  know 
the  force  of  "  seven  days."  It  was  a  complete  cycle  of  time, 
and  also  doubtless  in  connection  with  God's  people  on  the  earth. 
"  Day  "  might  be  used  of  heavenly  or  eternal  things,  not  "  seven 

AVe  may  get  important  instruction  in  God's  ways  from  all 
this.  There  are  in  Scripture  several  applications  of  leaven.  The 
Lord  speaks  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  of  the  Sadducecs,  and 
of  Herod.  The  Holy  Ghost  uses  the  expression  "  a  little  leaven" 
twice  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul ;  but  from  this  we  do  not  well  to 
allow  the  thought  that  thej^  are  parallel  passages.  Each  has  its 
own  force,  though  there  is  of  course  a  common  character.  But 
I  feel  very  strongly,  as  to  all  such  passages  aj^t  to  be  loosely 
huddled  together  and  called  parallel,  that  we  should  seek  to  dis- 
criminate. True  wisdom  is  not  manifested,  as  the  sages  say,  in 
trying  to  see  resemblances  in  things  which  differ,  but  in  discern- 
ing the  real  difference  among  those  which  resemble  one  another. 


What  you  need  to  cultivate  is  a  sound  judgment,  and  you  will 
never  get  it  by  hunting  up  so-called  parallel  passages.  The  habit 
is,  on  the  contrary,  destructive  to  intelligence  in  the  word  of  God. 
Hence  I  believe  it  would  be  far  better  if  such  references  were 
left  out  of  our  Bible,  and  the  readers  had  to  learn  it  thoroughly- 
for  themselves.  I  do  not  mean  you  should  not  have  a  concord- 
ance or  kindred  help  ;  but  the  Bible  should  be  printed  alone,  and 
is  incomparably  richer  without  than  with  these  additions,  which 
habitually  mislead  by  confounding  the  distinctions  which  lie 
under  phrases  more  or  less  verbally  similar.  The  headings  of 
the  chapters  and  at  the  top  of  the  columns  are  often  worse  than 
useless,  conveying  at  best  the  mere  views  of  men,  and  encum- 
bering the  page  which  should  give  only  what  is  divine. 

It  is  written  then  that  "  a  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole 
lump."  Hence  to  many,  as  the  same  words  appear  in  two 
different  passages,  the  too  rapid  inference  is  tliat  they  point  to 
just  the  same  thing.  So  far  is  this  from  being  true  that  the 
application  is  wholly  different.  AYhat  then  is  the  bearing  of 
each  ?  Let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  general  principle, 
that,  if  you  wish  to  understand  any  verse  of  Scripture,  you  must 
always  interpret  it  by  its  context.  In  1  Cor.  v.  leaven  represents 
what  is  unclean  and  corrupting,  and  manifestly  immoral.  They 
were  not  to  allow  "  the  wicked  person  "  in  their  midst,  for  evil 
sj)reads,  and  ever  so  little  leaven,  if  allowed,  sours  and  taints  the 
whole  lump.  In  Galatia  evil  was  taking  what  we  may  call  a 
religious  or  legal  form  (Gal.  v.  9).  The  Christians  were  ob- 
serving days,  months,  times,  and  years.  They  were  crying  up 
circumcision  as  a  desirable  supplement  to  faith.  This  was  the 
Pharisaic  leaven,  as  the  other  was  the  Sadducean.  The  leaven  of 
the  Sadducees  was  the  evil  of  free  thought  and  licentious 
action.  The  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  was  that  of  rigorous 
legalism  and  human  tradition. 

Keeping  the  feast  of  "  unleavened  bread  "  typifies  the  main- 
tenance of  personal  holiness.      So  Scripture  insists  :  Pom.  vi. 


xiL  xiii. ;  1  Cor.  v.  vi.  ;  Gal.  v.  vi. ;  EjdIi.  iv.  v, ;  1  Thess.  iv.  1-8  ; 
Heb.  xii.  14,  etc.  If  we  do  lift  up  our  hands  to  the  Lord,  let 
it  be  piously,  without  wrath  or  doubting  ;  let  the  walk  and 
ways  be  under  the  sense  of  responsibility,  as  separate  to  the 
Lord  ;  let  love  be  without  dissimulation  and  with  incorruptness. 
But  is  the  person  all  ?  Not  so.  Leaven  was  to  be  banished 
from  the  house  as  well  as  from  the  individual.  You  will  often  find 
people  careful  and  jealous  as  to  personal  walk,  and  to  the  last 
degree  lax  as  to  ecclesiastical  impurity.  The  Lord  calls  on  us 
here  to  beware  of  the  allowance  of  leaven  anywhere.  Cor- 
porate purity  is  worthless  without  due  regard  to  personal  holi- 
ness. Some  bring  their  horror  of  clericalism  or  of  the  sects  into 
shame  and  contempt  by  their  carelessness  about  their  spirit  and 
ordinary  walk.  We  are  bound  to  eschew  all  evil,  whether 
collective  or  individual.  In  short,  what  God  has  at  heart  is 
this — that  we  should  please  Him  in  every  relation,  in  what  is 
collective  as  well  as  individual  walk.  The  feast  of  "  unleavened 
bread "  takes  in  the  entire  pilgrimage,  our  whole  course  public 
as  well  as  private.  Thus  we  may  see  that  if  the  feast  was  to 
begin  on  the  first  day  after  the  Passover,  the  greatest  care  is 
taken  to  show  that  it  was  to  be  continued  throughout  our  entire 
life  here  below.  To  keep  this  feast  is  ever  our  calling  while  on 

The  Wave-Siieaf  and  the  Wave-Loaves. 

Lev.  XXIII.  9-22. 
I  HAVE  already  shown  the  character  of  the  Sabbath,  and 
how  God  introduced  it  in  a  manner  altogether  peculiar.  He 
presented  it  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  feasts,  though  in  fact 
its  accomplishment,  viewed  now  as  a  type,  wdU  be  at  the  end. 
It  is  the  great  purpose  to  which  all  lead.  As  a  present  witness 
to  this  God  attached  such  importance  to  the  Sabbath,  that, 


differing  from  all  the  other  feasts,  it  was  to  be  repeated  at  the 
end  of  every  week. 

Further,  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  the  Sabbath  is  done  with, 
for  it  is  to  be  in  force  throughout  the  millennium.  I  am  not 
speaking  of  the  Lord's  day,  when  we  very  properly  meet  to- 
gether as  Christians ;  and  I  believe,  so  far  from  its  being  a 
mere  question  of  man  or  churches  appointing  that  day,  that  it 
has  the  very  highest  divine  sanction.  So  true  is  this,  that  a 
Christian  losing  sight  of  the  import,  object,  and  character  of  the 
Lord's  day  would  be  more  guilty  than  a  Jew  that  dishonoured 
the  Sabbath  day.  But  as  the  Lord's  day  came  in  by  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ  for  the  Christian  and  the  church  meanwhile, 
it  will  be  the  Sabbath  and  not  the  Lord's  day  when  the  Lord 
God  establishes  the  kingdom  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  reigns 
manifestly  ;  when  idolatry  shall  be  abolished,  superstition  swept 
away,  and  every  kind  of  iniquity  that  now  raises  its  head  Avill 
have  met  its  end  ;  when  every  creature  in  this  world  will  be 
restored.  For  I  pity  the  man  who  thinks  the  world  was  only 
made  to  be  spoiled :  certainly  he  who  does  not  believe  it  is 
spoiled  must  be  more  lamentably  wrong  ;  but  it  is  a  gloomy  and 
false  thought  that  God  made  creation  only  to  be  ruined.  As  surely 
as  the  first  Adam  was  the  means  of  universal  ruin  for  the 
creature,  so  the  Second  Adam  will  be  the  great  Deliverer  not 
only  of  us  but  of  it.  He  will  reconcile  to  God  all  that  He 
made,  that  is,  all  things  :  I  say  not  ^i^crsons,  for  this  is  fatal  error. 
In  Scripture  you  never  read  of  all  persons  being  reconciled. 

One  little  word  makes  all  the  difference  between  blessed  truth 
and  hateful  error.  What  can  be  more  false  than  the  infidel 
dream  of  universal  restoration  ?  God  M'ill  judge  all  whose  sins 
have  not  been  borne  away  by  faith  in  Christ  and  His  cross. 

There  is  a  day  coming  when  all  creation  will  rejoice,  when 
the  heavens  and  the  earth  and  all  in  them  will  sinu  to'^ether. 
God  has  taken  particular  pains  to  express  the  earth's  joy  also, 
and  it  is  a  singular  proof  of  the  infatuation  of  man  that  he  can- 


not  see  it  though  clearly  revealed.  This  will  be  the  rest  of  God  ; 
and,  when  it  comes,  the  Sabbath  and  not  the  Lord's  day  will 
again  be  the  distinctive  sign  of  God,  which  He  will  have 
observed  and  honoured  through  the  whole  earth.  You  will 
judge  then  from  this  that  I  am  anything  but  an  anti-Sabba- 
tarian. Yet  it  is  an  indisputable  fact  now  that  all  is  changed. 
We  do  not  keep  the  last  but  the  first  day  of  the  week.  And 
what  principle  lies  at  the  bottom  of  the  change?  That  the 
Lord  is  risen  indeed,  and  not  only  so,  but  is  gone  to  heaven,  and 
the  first  day  of  the  week  shines  from  the  person  of  the  risen 
Lord  Jesus  in  the  heavens,  now  opened,  on  a  heavenly  people 
who  are  as  yet  here,  but  going  to  be  with  the  Lord  Jesus  there. 
Hence  it  will  always  follow  that,  when  men  confound  the 
Sabbath  and  the  Lord's  day,  they  are  earthly-minded.  As  the 
Sabbath  is  bound  up  exclusively  with  the  earth  and  an  earthly 
people,  so  is  the  Lord's  day  with  those  who  are  heavenly. 

The  next  feast,  indeed  the  first  of  the  feasts  proper  as  here 
begun,  is  the  passover.  "  In  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month 
at  even  is  Jehovah's  passover."  The  foundation  of  all  the  ways 
of  God  for  a  fallen  people  is  laid  not  in  grace,  only  but  righteous- 
ness ;  it  is  the  deatli,  the  efficacy  of  the  blood,  of  the  Lamb. 
Theology  would  ho//e  ordered  otherwise,  and  made  it  tlie  law  or 
Christ's  obedience  of  it.  But  mark  it  well :  the  first  feast  is 
not  even  a  witness  of  the  incarnation,  nor  of  the  Lord's  path. on 
earth  ;  but  His  blood  staying  divine  judgment.  God  begins  with 
Christ's  deatli  :  and  no  wonder  ;  He  could  not  overlook  our  sins  ; 
and  there  they  were  for  the  first  time  righteously  met,  and  one 
may  add,  as  far  as  the  type  goes,  for  the  last  time  as  well  as  first. 
They  were  perfectly  met  for  us  by  Him.  It  made  no  difference 
to  the  revealing  Spirit  whether  the  facts  were  present  or  future, 
so  far  as  the  communication  of  God's  mind  was  concerned.  All 
was  before  His  eyes,  though  in  Christ  and  after  redemption  the 
truth  comes  out  with  deeper  and  infinite  fulness.  But  every 
scripture  is  divinely  inspired,  and  it  was  just  as  impossible  that 


God  could  lie  before  His  atoning  work  was  accomplished  as 
when  it  was  ;  and  that  is  in  part  my  reason  for  taking  this 
chapter  to  speak  on.  It  is  high  time  for  every  Christian  to  stand 
for  the  word  of  God,  and  for  every  written  word  of  His.  The  dif- 
ficult times  of  the  last  days  are  come.  Those  that  hesitate  their 
dislike,  or  openly  declare  it,  against  what  they  call  verbal  in- 
spiration, are  apt  to  lose  all  right  sense  of  God's  word.  It  might 
be  profitable,  for  such  as  shrink  from  the  inspiration  of  the 
word,  to  say  what  remains  for  themselves  to  depend  on.  If  you 
give  up  to  the  infidel  the  words  of  Scripture,  he  will  not  leave 
you  the  thoughts  of  God.  You  may  try  to  separate  the  truth 
from  the  words  of  God  ;  but  truth  is  communicated  by  words  ; 
and  the  apostle  claims  to  speak  "  in  words  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  teacheth."  The  Bible  is  the  only  book  which  possesses  such 
a  character ;  and  the  Christian  who  is  led  by  the  Spirit  in  searching 
the  word  of  God  wiU  learn  how  worthy  of  all  confidence  is  the 
only  and  absolutely  perfect  communication  of  the  mind  of  God. 

On  the  paschal  night  God  acted  as  Judge.  This  was  neces- 
sary and  righteous.  And  let  me  remark  here  how  dangerous 
it  is  when  people  talk  about  His  love,  where  they  ought  to 
think  and  bow  before  His  solemn  judgment  of  sin. 

I  do  not  deny  love  for  an  instant ;  but  even  the  boundless  love 
of  God  cannot  treat  with  sin,  except  by  His  own  judgment  of  it. 
K  sin  were  to  be  judged  in  our  persons,  we  must  be  lost  for  ever. 
But  then  grace  provided  an  offering,  the  only  adequate  one,  in 
Christ  on  the  cross ;  and,  accordingly,  all  the  holy  unsparing  force 
of  God's  judgment  fell  on  the  head  of  the  Lord  Jesus  there  and 
then.  It  is  not  merely  that  He  died  in  love  in  order  to  meet  our 
need — this  He  did  most  surely,  but  far  more  and  of  deeper  im- 
port, for  He  met  the  judgment  of  God.  He  suffered  what  sin 
deserved  at  the  hand  of  God.  And  this  is  so  essential  to  truth 
that  one  could  not  call  a  true  believer  in  the  atonement  the  man 
who  only  sees  Christ  dying  in  love  to  man,  and  so  only  takes  in 
the  outward  fact  and  human  side  of  the  cross. 



It  is  plain  fact  tliat  those  who  that  day  only  saw  Christ 
crucified  were  none  the  better,  but  rather  worse.  They  were 
hardened  at  the  sight,  and  afterwards  more  careless  than  ever. 
Those  whom  grace  gave  to  believe  what  God  wrought  therein  were 
saved  from  wrath.    It  was  shadowed  in  the  blood  of  the  slain  lamb. 

Thereon  immediately  (and  there  is  nothing  morally  more 
remarkable  in  these  feasts)  follows  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread.  Indeed,  as  may  be  seen  elsewhere,  the  two  are  so  bound 
up  together  that  they  are  both  sometimes  called  the  Passover. 
Not  one  day  is  allowed  to  separate  them ;  and  this  because  God 
will  not  allow  that  the  remission  of  our  sins  brought  in  by  the 
blood  of  the  Lamb  shall  be  for  ever  so  little  separated  from  our 
responsibility  to  holiness.  The  moment  the  Israelite  was  under 
the  shelter  of  the  blood  of  the  lamb,  he  was  forbidden  to  eat 
leavened  bread,  or  have  leaven  in  any  shape  within  his  house. 

The  Wave-Sheaf. 

But  now  we  come  to  another  principle.  It  was  not  merely 
that  God  was  at  the  cross  as  the  Judge  of  sin.  What  was  shown 
at  Christ's  resurrection  ?  We  all  know,  as  it  is  written,  that  God, 
the  very  One  who  smote  Jesus,  raised  Him  from  the  dead.  Sin 
was  condemned,  not  for  every  one,  but  for  those  who  believed. 
For  those  who  do  not  believe  there  will  only  be  the  greater  con- 
demnation, for  their  sins  are  aggravated  by  the  fact  that,  in  the 
face  of  God,  they  have  despised  and  rejected  the  Son  of  God ; 
and,  more  than  that,  the  Son  of  God  dying  as  a  propitiation  for 
sins.  Thus  the  divine  judgment  of  sin  on  the  cross  makes  the 
case  of  the  unbeliever  incomparably  graver  ;  for  he  is  not  only 
a  sinner,  but  refuses  the  grace  of  God  that  M'ould  save  him. 

Here  we  come  to  a  new  section,  and  indeed  a  new  utterance 
of  Jehovah  to  Moses,  not  precisely  a  new  feast,  but  at  any  rate 
introductory  to  a  new  feast  and  indeed  the  whole  pivot  on 
which  it  turns.  "  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  and  say 
unto  them,  When  ye  be  come  into  the  land  which  I  give  unto 


you,  and  shall  reap  the  harvest  thereof,  then  ye  shall  bring  a 
sheaf  of  the  first-fruits  of  your  harvest  unto  the  priest"  (v.  10). 
What  is  the  bearing  of  this  ?  I  am  addressing  those  who,  it  may 
be  taken  for  granted,  believe  that  every  word  of  God  has  a  mean- 
ing, and  a  most  important  meaning.  You  do  not  require  to  be 
reminded  that  God's  word  before  Christ  is  just  as  truly  inspired 
as  the  New  Testament. 

The  wave-sheaf  then  is  introduced  as  quite  separate  from 
the  passover  and  accompanying  feast  of  unleavened  bread.  But 
in  point  of  fact  the  wave-sheaf  was  waved  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week  that  followed  the  passover.  So  the  Lord  was  cruci- 
fied on  Friday,  lay  in  the  grave  on  the  Sabbath  or  last  day  of 
the  week,  and  rose  on  the  first  day  or  Sunday  as  the  Gentiles 
called  it.  He  was  raised  from  the  dead  on  the  very  day  the 
wave-sheaf  was  waved  before  Jehovah.  Little  did  the  priest 
who  waved  it  conceive  the  power  and  character  of  the  truth  set 
forth  in  the  first-fruits  he  was  thus  presenting  before  the  God 
of  Israel.  But  the  Eisen  One  and  Eaiser  of  the  dead  had  left 
the  grave  and  broken  its  power  for  the  believer,  whether  they 
knew  it  or  not;  and  if  the  Jew  refused  to  listen,  the  Gentiles 
by  grace  would  hear.  Indeed  there  is  no  apter  figure  of  resur- 
rection in  the  Bible  than  that  of  the  grain  falling  into  the 
ground  and  dying,  and  then  springing  up.  It  is  the  Lord's  own 
illustration  in  John  xii.  24 :  "  Except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into 
the  ground  and  die,  it  abideth  alone  ;  but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth 
forth  much  fruit."  Of  whom  was  it  spoken  ?  Of  His  own 
death  and  resurrection,  with  its  mighty  consequences.  If  He  is 
not  raised,  vain  is  apostolic  preaching,  and  vain  the  Christian's 
faith.  But  Christ  is  raised  from  among  the  dead,  first-fruits  of 
those  fallen  asleep.  So  here  it  is  said,  "  And  he  sliall  wave  the 
sheaf  before  Jehovah,  to  be  accepted  for  you  "  (v.  11).  Xor  is  sal- 
vation ever  known  Avitliout  it  though  souls  may  be  born  again. 
For  it  is  the  light  of  His  resurrection  which  chases  away  all 
gloom  and  dries  every  tear  of  anxious  sorrow.     It  is  the  resurrec- 


tiou  of  the  Lord  which  brings  out  the  acceptance  of  the  believer 
without  question  before  God.  In  His  death  our  evil  was  dealt 
with  atoningly,  the  sole  righteous  basis  for  the  forgiveness  of 
sinful  man  ;  but  Christ's  resurrection  declares  that  the  sins  are 
for  ever  gone  for  those  who  believe.  "  He  was  delivered  for  our 
offences,  and  raised  for  our  justification."  "  On  the  morrow  after 
the  sabbath  the  priest  shall  wave  it."  The  type  is  fully  con- 
firmed by  the  striking  coincidence  of  the  facts. 

This  then  is  what  w^e  have  prefigured  in  the  wave-sheaf: 
Christ  raised  by  God's  power  and  the  Father's  glory ;  by  His  power 
entering  the  grave  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  after  all  that  He  felt  and 
could  do  against  sin  was  exhausted  in  the  cross.  Therein  was 
God  glorified  so,  that  it  was  His  right  to  raise  up  Jesus  from  the 
dead,  never  ceasing  till  He  set  Him  at  His  own  right  hand  in 
heaven,  and  gave  Him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name.  As 
man  He  died  ;  as  man  He  is  raised  up  and  exalted.  As  a  divine 
person,  the  Son  has  everything ;  but  He  became  a  man,  and  hum- 
bled Himself,  yea,  to  death  of  the  cross  ;  and  now,  in  resur- 
rection, He  is  taken  up  as  man  by  the  power  of  God,  who  raised 
Him  from  the  dead  and  gave  Him  glory,  that  our  faith  and  hope 
might  be  in  God. 

With  the  wave-sheaf  there  was  to  be  no  offering  for  sin.  Tins 
is  a  remarkable  exception.  If  Israel  or  the  Christian  had  been 
meant,  there  must  have  been  a  sin  or  trespass  offering.  Here  it  is 
Christ,  and  as  fittingly  there  was  no  sin-offering.  When  it  was  a 
question  of  bringing  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  blood  was  put  on  every 
door-post.  The  passover  was  thus  a  striking  type  of  blood 
shed  and  sprinkled  to  stay  divine  judgment,  with  holiness  fol- 
lowing. Here  is  a  fresh  thing  in  the  wave-sheaf.  For  there 
are  two  great  principles  :  one  displayed  in  the  death  of  Christ ; 
the  other  in  His  resurrection  ;  and  they  are  so  distinct  that  God 
employs  two  different  types  to  show  them  forth  in  our  chapter. 

It  is  certain  that  this  typifies  Christ's  resurrection,  and  none 
but  His  ;  for  we  see  there  was  no  offering  for  sin  connected  with 


it.  He  was  the  only  man  since  the  world  began  who  could  he 
presented  to  God  without  blood.  An  offering  for  sin  was  needed, 
even  for  the  high  priest,  "  as  for  the  people,  so  also  for  himself  f 
but  not  so  for  Christ,  who  died  for  our  sins.  Ver.  12  :  "  And  ye 
shall  offer  that  day  when  ye  wave  the  sheaf  an  he-lamb,  without 
blemish,  of  the  first  year,  for  a  burnt-offering  unto  Jehovah : 
and  the  meat-offering  thereof  shall  be  two  tenth-deals  of  fine 
flour,  mingled  with  oil  ;  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  Jehovah 
for  a  sweet  savour."  It  is  clearly  then  a  question  of  Christ  only, 
For  here  we  have  the  two  great  offerings  of  sweet  savour :  the 
burnt-offering  and  the  meat-offering,  both  speaking  of  accept- 
ance personally  in  His  perfection  ;  and  of  a  double  perfection — 
perfection  of  life  lived  in  the  meat-offering,  and  perfection  of 
life  given  up,  or  death,  in  the  burnt-offering.  As  usual,  there 
was  of  course  the  accompanying  drink-offering,  but  not  a  trace 
of  anything  inconsistent  with  the  savour  of  rest  that  God  found 
in  Christ ;  for  it  is  of  Him,  and  of  Him  alone,  that  the  Spirit 
here  speaks  j)rophetically, 

I  would  direct  your  attention  for  a  little  to  the  next  verse, 
and  for  this  reason  : — It  helps  to  explain  an  expression  in  Luke 
vi.  1,  about  which  I  dare  say  some  here  present  have  found  dififi- 
culty,  as  certainly  most  people  elsewhere.  "  And  it  came  to  pass 
on  the  second  sabbath  after  the  first  that  He  went  through  the 
corn-fields ;  and  His  disciples  plucked  the  ears  of  corn  and  did 
eat,  rubbing  them  in  their  hands."  What  is  the  force  of  "  the 
second  sabbath  after  the  first "  ?  For  this  I  fear  it  is  of  little 
use  to  send  you  to  the  commentators,  for  they  are  all  at  sea  about 
it  as  about  most  real  difficulties  for  which  you  want  their 
help.  Some  have  had  recourse  to  a  very  harsh  way  of  getting 
out  of  the  difficulty,  and  that  is  cutting  out  the  word  (for  in 
Greek  it  is  only  a  single  word)  diursooT^uiTuj :  a  very  dangerous 
principle  where  the  Bible  is  concerned.  One  celebrated  critic 
thus  guilty  repented,  virtually  confessing  the  fault  by  replacing 
it.     But  it  is  no  bad  moral  lesson  for  us  to  have  to  say,  "  I  do 


not  know."  This  at  least  is  true  and  lowly ;  and  if  one  looks  up 
for  light,  it  is  well,  for  then  God  can  give  what  is  lacking. 

"Without  saying  more  at  this  time  about  the  critics,  let  us 
look  at  verse  14,  for  it  is  important,  and  helps  to  clear  up 
a  phrase  otherwise  dark.  Now  it  is  a  vital  claim  of  piety  all 
through  Scripture  that  God  must  have  His  portion  first,  before 
the  believer  can  becomingly  take  and  enjoy  his.  One  feels  how 
right  it  is  that  God  should  be  considered  in  the  first  place  ;  it  is 
due  to  Him,  and  true  in  everything  ;  and  if  we  do  not  render  it, 
we  must  suffer  the  bitter  consequence.  So  distinctly  was  this 
impressed  on  the  statutes  and  ways  of  Israel,  that  no  godly 
person  there  would  have  attempted  to  touch  his  corn  before  the 
first  sheaf  had  been  waved  before  Jehovah.  How  blessedly  this 
applies  to  Christ,  we  all  feel !  Once  Christ  is  the  waved  first- 
fruits,  what  may  not  follow  ? 

For  remember  that  Christ  is  a  man  (not  only  the  eternal  Son 
of  God),  but  One  who  having  become  a  man  has  accomplished 
redemption.  To  His  resurrection  the  wave-sheaf  pointed  in  type, 
and  this  for  our  acceptance.  As  man  risen  from  the  dead  He 
goes  up  to  heaven.  He  was  not  taken  up  in  a  merely  excep- 
tional way,  as  an  individual  like  Enoch  or  Elijah  ;  He  was  head 
of  the  new  family  whose  sins  He  liad  borne,  going  up  into  the 
glory  of  God,  accepted  for  man,  that  is,  for  those  who  believe. 
By  man,  when  He  was  here  below,  we  know  how  He  was  rejected 
and  crucified ;  but  God  raised  llim  up  from  the  dead,  and  gave 
Him  glory,  that  our  faith  and  hope  might  be  in  God. 

And  now  the  disciples  were  going  with  their  Master  through 
the  corn-fields  ;  and,  being  hungry,  on  that  Sabbath  accordiug  to 
the  gracious  permission  of  Jehovah  they  plucked  and  ate  the  ears 
of  corn.  Now  it  is  said  here  that  this  particular  Sabbath  was  "  the 
second  after  tlie  first,"  or  second-first.  How  striking  that  this 
should  be  the  first  Sabbath  on  which  it  was  allowable  !  It  was 
of  no  use  to  show  this  to  unbelieving  Pharisees.  For  what  did  they 
care  for  the  truth  ?     Their  only  wish  was  through  the  disciples 


to  damage  the  Lord,  being  blind  instruments  in  the  hand  of 
Satan.  But  the  Lord  vindicates  amply  His  guiltless  followers. 
On  this  I  need  not  enter,  but  will  just  explain  the  force  of  the 
term  in  question.  The  first  Sabbath  of  the  paschal  feast  was 
emphatically  said  to  be  a  high  or  great  day  (John  xix.  31). 
And  no  wonder  when  we  take  in  what  God  foresaw.  But  so  it 
was  also  in  Jewish  estimate.  Alas  for  man  !  It  was  the  very 
day  in  which  Christ  lay  in  the  grave,  the  only  day,  Sabbath  as 
it  was,  marked  by  that  awful  crime  throughout  its  entire  evening 
and  morning.  It  was  only  a  part  of  the  other  two  days,  out  of  the 
three,  which  was  reckoned  day  and  night.  On  thcd  first  Sabbath, 
immediately  before  the  wave-sheaf  as  it  was,  no  Jew  would  have 
partaken  of  the  corn.  The  day  after  it  was  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  when  the  wave-sheaf  was  offered.  The  following  Sabbath 
was  "ihe  second-first  "immediately  after  the  wave-sheaf.  The  one 
was  the  first,  the  next  the  second-first,  because  associated  with  it. 
But  why  do  I  mention  all  this  ?  Just  to  show  how  precious 
is  Scripture  to  explain  Scripture.  Nothing  else,  as  a  general 
rule,  can  :  but  we  need  the  Holy  Spirit  to  give  us  it  aright.  The 
word  "  second-first "  occurs  nowhere  but  in  this  verse  of  Luke. 
We  see  the  value  of  the  Old  Testament  to  understand  the  New, 
not  only  the  New  to  understand  the  Old.  Holy  Scripture  is 
inspired  and  profitable ;  yet  it  is  a  fact,  as  singular  as  it  is  sure,  that 
we  only  begin  to  appreciate  intelHgently  the  Old  when  we  are  at 
home  in  the  New.  They  both  go  together  for  faith  and  blessing, 
as  they  ought ;  and  the  key  to  both  is  found  in  Christ  the  Saviour 
alone,  but  Christ,  King  of  Israel  as  well  as  Head  of  the  Church  and 
of  all  nations  too,  for  we  must  not  limit  or  confound  His  glories. 

The  Wave-Loaves,  or  Feast  of  Weeks. 

Next  let  us  turn  to  the  feast  of  verses  lb  et  scqq.:  "  And  ye  shall 
count  iinto  you  from  the  morrow  after  the  sabbath,  from  the  day 
that  ye  brought  the  sheaf  of  the  wave  offering,  seven  sabbaths 
shall  be  complete."     There  is  the  peculiar  expression  of  fulness 


here,  such  as  we  liear  of  nowhere  else.  This  feast  only  is  marked 
out  by  seven  sabbaths  intervening.  It  is  the  fe,ast  of  weeks,  but 
among  the  Hellenists,  or  Gr^^ek-speaking  Jews,  the  number  fifty, 
as  is  well  known,  has  given  the  name  to  this  feast,  which  is 
therefore  called  "  Pentecost."  "What  then  was  fulfilled  when  the 
day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come  ?  The  Father  made  good  His 
promise,  that  incomparable  promise  of  which  the  Lord  Himself 
had  said,  "  It  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away."  What  could 
outweigh  the  blessedness  of  His  presence  with  His  disciples  on 
earth  ?  The  gift  of  the  Comforter,  not  merely  gifts  but  Himself 
baptizing  them,  no  longer  in  hope  but  accomplished  in  fact. 

Therefore  they  were  told  on  that  day  to  offer  a  new  meat- 
offering. 1  daresay  you  are  all  familiar  with  the  repugnance 
that  many,  believers  even,  have  to  looking  at  the  Church  as  a 
new  thing.  They  like  to  think  of  it  as  that  which  has  always 
been  and  which  shall  always  go  on  till  eternity.  Yet  it  is  re- 
markable that  not  only  does  Paul  give  it  the  name  of  the  "one 
new  man,"  but  Moses  here  calls  it  a  "  new  meat-offering? "  There 
was  a  meat-offering  before,  unambiguously  shadowing  Christ,  as 
here  a  man  devoted  to  God's  service.  Here  was  something  "new" 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  What  did  "the  new  meat-offering" 
mean?  I  leave  it  to  yourselves,  to  your  own  conscience  and 
intelligence  :  the  answer  is  so  certain  that  one  need  not  say  more 
about  it.  At  that  day  began  here  below  a  thing  so  new  that  it 
was  entirely  without  precedent. 

Again,  in  verse  17,  we  hear  of  "two  wave-loaves."  ]\Iark 
the  association  with  Christ.  He  was  the  wave-sheaf,  and  He 
alone  :  these  were  wave-loaves,  and  there  were  to  be  two.  Do 
you  ask  if  it  be  not  said  that  the  Church  was  a  mystery  hid  for 
ages  and  generations  ?  How  then  can  it  be  thus  typified  here  ? 
My  answer  is,  God  took  care,  though  giving  this  type,7io^  to  reveal 
the  mystery.  He  did  show  some  important  truths  that  meet  in 
the  mystery,  but  never  disclosed  itself.  For  instance,  if  He  had 
meant  to  reveal  it  in  this  type,  He  would  (as  it  appears  to  me,  if 


I  may  reverently  so  speak),  have  spoken  of  "  one  loaf."  Certainly, 
when  the  mystery  was  revealed,  it  was  marked  as  "one  new  man," 
"  one  body,"  etc.  ;  and  in  the  sign  of  the  Lord's  Supper  we  have,- 
not  two  loaves,  but  one  bread  or  one  loaf  as  one  body  The  time 
then  had  not  come  to  reveal  the  mystery,  for  Christ  had  not  been 
rejected  nor  redemption  as  yet  wrought.  Consequently  the  Spirit 
of  God  has  only  given  us  here  the  witness  of  our  association 
with  Him  :  what  may  be  called  a  shadow,  not  the  very  image. 
The  symbol  was  plain  in  the  one  loaf  when  the  Church  began. 

I  am  aware  that  some  excellent  men  have  supposed  the  two 
loaves  to  be  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile  ;  but  it  seems  to  me  incorrect. 
No  doubt  ecclesiastical  history  will  tell  you  as  much  ;  but  I  do 
not  believe  men  but  God.  Ecclesiastical  history  may  assure 
us  that  Peter  and  Paul  founded  two  churches  at  Eome  ;  but  we 
know  that  the  church  at  Eome  was  founded  by  neither  apostle, 
and  indeed  by  no  apostle.  It  is  perfectly  certain  from  Scripture 
that  the  saints  in  Eome  were  gathered  long  before  an  apostle 
went  there  ;  and  it  is  very  hard  to  learn  on  what  ground  they 
ever  went  there,  except  as  prisoners  of  the  Lord.  Peter  may 
have  been  crucified  there  ;  Paul  may  have  gone  to  prison  and  to 
death  there  ;  but  as  to  founding  the  Eoman  Church,  they  never 
did,  and  no  claim  is  put  in  for  any  other  apostle. 

Further,  in  the  Book  of  the  Acts,  so  called,  we  have  the 
fullest  evidence  of  the  care  then  taken  to  avoid  having  two 
churches  anywhere.  When  Philip  went  down  to  Samaria,  though 
people  were  converted  and  baptized,  there  was  no  church  formed 
till  the  apostles  Peter  and  John  went  down.  Thus  the  link  was 
kept  up  with  the  church  in  Jerusalem  in  the  most  careful  manner. 
Of  laying  on  of  hands  we  hear  not  in  Jerusalem,  there  being  no 
necessity  for  it  that  day  :  in  Samaria  there  was,  or  there  might 
have  been  ground  taken  for  an  independent  church,  of  which 
there  is  no  trace  in  Scripture.  Geographically  there  may  be  ever 
so  many  churches,  but  there  is  only  one  church  of  God,  only  one 
communion  recognised  on  earth.     I  know  there  are  persons  ex- 


ceediugly  sore  as  to  that  point  :  it  is  usual  when  people  feel 
their  weakness.  What  they  need  to  see  is  that  it  is  no  ques- 
tion of  opinion  or  will,  but  of  submission  to  God  and  His  word. 

I  say  then,  the  two  wave-loaves  do  not  mean  two  churches,  a 
Jewish  and  a  Gentile  :  the  very  worst  notion  possible,  one  may 
add,  as  it  would  have  kept  up  the  old  distinction  ;  while  the  very 
essence  of  the  Gospel,  as  well  as  of  the  one  body,  is  to  break  all 
this  down  for  ever,  as  well  as  to  save,  in  Christ. 

"When  God  gives  a  witness,  His  regular  way  is  by  at  least 
"  two."  So  we  read  "  that  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  wit- 
nesses every  word  may  be  established."  When  there  was  to  be 
a  full  witness,  and  not  a  barely  valid  or  sufficient  testimony, 
there  were  three.  So  the  Lord  was  three  days  in  the  grave  ; 
there  was  the  fullest  witness  to  His  death.  Two  witnesses 
were  necessary.  And  so  it  will  be  by  and  by,  when  things 
come  to  a  serious  pass  for  the  Lord  in  Jerusalem.  Ther6  will  be 
"  His  two  witnesses : "  not  that  I  understand  this  to  be  said  nu- 
merically, but  according  to  the  figure  of  adequacy.  Here  Christ 
was  risen — the  wave-sheaf.  AVhat  witness  was  given  next  of 
the  power  of  His  resurrection  ?  Ourselves,  as  the  two  wave- 
loaves.  Tlie  Christian  company  are  witnesses,  not  to  the  law  of 
God  like  Israel,  but  to  His  grace  in  Christ  risen  from  the  dead. 
Such  is  the  contrast  that  Paul  brings  out  in  2  Cor.  iii.,  where 
he  speaks  of  our  having  Christ  written  on  us.  He  takes  par- 
ticular pains  to  show  that  it  is  not  on  tables  of  stone.  He 
leaves  this  to  the  Jew,  who,  without  doubt,  was  called  to  be  a 
witness  to  the  law  of  God,  as  the  Christian  is  to  a  dead  and 
risen  Christ  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit. 

The  wave-loaves,  we  see,  were  to  be  of  fine  flour  baken  with 
leaven.  Here  are  two  constituents  in  the  types,  so  opposed  to 
each  other  that  one  who  knew  their  use  elsewhere  might  wonder 
what  to  think  of  them  here.  Fine  flour ! — why,  that  is  like 
Christ,  pure,  without  sin ;  and  leaven! — that  is  like  ourselves,  na- 
turally corrupt  and  corrupting  ;  and  is  not  this  just  what  Scrip- 


ture  teaches  ?  Yet  there  is  where  so  many  find  a  difficulty  about 
the  two  natures ;  but  really  I  am  unable  to  find  an  excuse  for  their 
want  of  light  as  to  both  Scripture  and  themselves.  I  do  not  think 
that  Christians  ever  so  young  in  truth  should  find  it  hard  to 
believe  that  they  have  two  natures  within  them,  one  craving  after 
what  is  evil  and  old  habits  of  self,  the  other  delighting  in  the 
will  of  God  and  loving  what  is  of  Christ.  We  do  not  need  to 
go  to  Epistles,  like  those  to  the  Eomans,  Corinthians,  or  Gala- 
tians :  here  we  have  the  type  wrought  out  that  the  wayfarer 
may  not  err.  I  know  that  a  short  time  ago  some  zealous  folk 
came  over  from  America  to  preach  up  that  the  Christian  might 
be  a  perfect  being  without  any  sin.  Moses  refutes  it  all.  Here 
we  have  two  seemingly  contradictory  things  mingled  in  what 
typifies  Christians — fine  flour  and  leaven.  Experience  tallies 
with  it.  Not  that  there  is  the  least  excuse  for  sin  ;  but  sin  is 
there,  set  out  by  leaven,  not  at  work  but  baked  in  the  bread. 

Thus  we  see  how  truth  all  hangs  together,  and  from  first  to 
last  God  only  speaks  perfect  truth ;  and  man,  without  Him,  can 
only  find  out  and  utter  what  is  not  true  in  spiritual  things. 
Our  part  in  the  things  of  God  is  not  to  theorise,  but  to  believe. 
But  the  Spirit  is  as  necessaiy  to  the  understanding  of  the 
word,  as  the  word  is  the  necessary  material  for  the  Spirit  to 
use.  Yet  I  am  sure  that  one  safely  finds  the  truth  not  as 
a  student,  but  as  a  believer.  God  is  dealing  with  the  heart  and 
conscience.  You  cannot  separate  real  growth  in  the  truth  from 
the  moral  state  of  the  soul :  if  we  essay  it,  we  may  appear  to  get 
on  very  fast  in  learning  the  Bible,  but  it  is  to  be  feared  that  the 
next  step  will  be  a  fall. 

Again,  in  verse  18,  we  read,  "  And  ye  shall  offer  with  the 
bread  seven  lambs,  without  blemish,  of  the  first  year  ;  and  one 
young  bullock,  and  two  rams  :  they  shall  be  for  a  burnt-offering 
unto  Jehovah."  The  Christian  should  have  the  sense  of  com- 
plete acceptance  before  our  God  and  Father ;  and  even  this  is 
not  all     In  verse  19,  "  Then  ye  shall  sacrifice  one  kid  of  the 


goats  for  a  sin-offering,  and  two  lambs  of  the  first  year  for  a 
sacrifice  of  peace-offerings."  In  the  case  of  the  wave-sheaf,  as 
we  saw,  there  was  enjoined  a  burnt-offering  and  a  meat-offering. 
It  is  just  the  same  here  :  the  church  by  grace  has  the  same 
acceptance  as  Christ  had  in  Himself.  The  object  of  redemption 
was  that  we  might  be  even  now  as  completely  free  from  charge 
of  sin  before  God  as  the  blessed  Saviour  ;  but  He  in  His  own 
perfection,  we  in  virtue  of  His  work  for  us.  Nothing  can  be 
plainer  than  the  type,  unless  it  be  the  divine  explanation  in  the 
New  Testament.  Consequently  we  have  the  same  figures  and 
similar  language  used  ;  but  now  we  come  to  a  different  thing,  for 
there  is  a  most  striking  difference.  With  the  wave-loaf  there 
was  to  be  a  peace-offering  and  also  a  sin-offering ;  there  was 
none  in  the  case  of  Christ.  In  Him  was  no  sin.  It  is  not 
merely  that  Christ  never  sinned,  but  in  Him  was  no  sin  ;  and  I 
particularly  press  this.  He  never  had  a  sinful  nature,  else  He 
must  have  required  a  sin-offering  for  Himself.  But  it  was 
absolutely  needful  that  an  offering  for  sin  should  be  essentially 
sinless.  And  again,  when  it  was  a  question  of  Him  or  of  His 
person,  peace-offerings  have  no  place.  The  peace-offering  was  when 
communion  was  restored,  or  in  communion  ;  but  it  followed  the 
sin-offering  of  course.  The  application  is  to  us  and  not  to  Christ. 
On  another  word  of  the  Spirit  I  must  be  brief.  It  is  verse 
22  :  "  And  when  ye  reap  the  harvest  of  your  land,  thou  shalt  not 
make  clean  riddance  of  the  corners  of  thy  field."  What  is  the 
meaning  of  this  ?  Does  it  not  seem  rather  singular  that,  after 
the  two  wave-loaves  have  disappeared  from  the  scene,  good  corn 
should  be  found  still  in  "  thy  field  ? "  The  wave-loaves,  we  all 
agree,  mean  the  Christian  body.  Some  may  go  farther  back 
than  others,  Init  none  deny  that  they  are  Christians  at  any  rate. 
How  comes  it,  when  these  are  gone,  that  we  hear  of  grain  left  in 
the  corners  of  the  field  ?  Can  the  wave-loaves  typify  all  saints  ? 
Do  you  not  see  that  such  an  instance  as  this  proves  that  there 
will  be  true  believers  on  the  earth  after  the  church  has  dis- 


appeared  ?  There  will  be  here  below  good  corn.  Of  course  they 
are  not  members  of  the  one  body ;  but  God  has  other  purposes,  and 
purposes  both  for  the  Jew  and  Gentile  ;  as  here  some  corn  was  to 
be  left  for  the  poor  and  the  stranger.  The  Apocalyptic  saints 
may  illustrate  this — saints  during  the  last  week  of  Daniel's 
Seventy,  after  we  see  the  elders  in  heaven. 

To-morrow,  if  the  Lord  will,  I  hope  to  enter  on  the  revelation 
of  what  is  entirely  future.  We  have  had  the  past,  and  the 
present  too,  before  us.  This  last  verse  touches  on  the  cut-off 
week  in  the  future,  but  it  does  not  develope  the  great  and  dis- 
tinct plans  which  God  has  unrolled  that  we  may  learn  in  the 
closing  feasts. 


The  Feasts  of  the  Future. 

Leviticus  xxiii.  23-end. 
The  last  portion  of  the  chapter  which  occupied  us  was  (save 
verse  22)  the  feast  of  weeks,  a  distinct  type  of  God's  dealings 
with  the  Christian  calling.  It  is  hardly  possible  that  any  man 
possessing  the  slightest  claim  to  the  name  of  believer  should 
question  the  fact.  That  is,  the  feast  tallied  to  the  very  day  with 
God's  sending  down  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  beginning  to  gather 
together  His  children.  Ko  doubt  they  all  were  Jews  at  first, 
but  along  with  it  went  this  remarkable  peculiarity :  they  were 
Jews  that  spoke  every  language  under  heaven  ;  Jews  that  spoke 
not  only  the  language  of  Canaan,  but  the  tongues  of  the  Gentile 
world.  Surely  this  was  a  most  significant  fact !  But  more  than 
that  :  not  only  were  such  brought  in,  but  Jews  of  Palestine,  yea 
of  Galilee,  were  employed  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to 
address  them  in  all  sorts  of  languages  never  before  learnt.  The 
miracle  showed  the  widely-flowing  grace  of  God  that  was  coming 
and  to  come  out.  It  was  not  as  yet  that  all  creation,  groaning 
in  bondage,  was  to  be  delivered,  but  the  whole  of  it  under 
heaven  was  to  hear  the  gospel     Hence  the  power  of  the  Holy 


Ghost  enabled  the  unlettered  fishermen  of  Galilee  thus  to  address 
their  fellow-men  in  the  language  of  every  land  into  which  the 
judgment  of  God  had  scattered  them.  Besides  a  gathering 
power  to  Christ  as  a  centre,  grace  was  meeting  men  in  the 
variety  of  tongues  to  which  the  judgment  of  God  had  doomed 
them  at  Babel.  For  it  needs  no  reasoning  to  prove  that  God's 
work  at  Pentecost  was  not  merely  to  save  sinners.  Those  who 
say  so  have  a  most  superficial  idea  of  the  great  work  done  that 
day.  Undoubtedly  salvation  was  going  on,  and  it  was  a  new 
fact.  Salvation  before  this  was  only  held  out  in  promise.  ISTow 
the  promise  was  accomplished.  Clearly  then  those  who  sup- 
pose salvation  to  be  no  more  than  promised  do  not  understand 
the  immense  step  God  has  taken  in  His  ways.  It  is  really 
because  of  the  low  estimate  they  have,  not  perhaps  of  Christ, 
but  of  His  work.  The  root  of  the  mischief  lies  there  ;  it  may  seem 
a  distant  point,  but,  when  approached,  it  will  always  be  found  to  be 
an  inadequate  view  of  redemption.  There  is  not  the  reception 
of  God's  testimony  within.  Of  course  I  am  speaking  here  of 
soul-salvation,  as  we  hear  in  1  Pet.  i.  :  "  Eeceiving  the  end  of 
your  faith,  even  the  salvation  of  your  souls."  The  salvation  of 
the  body  is  not  come  yet  ;  the  salvation  of  the  soul  is  as  com- 
plete as  it  ever  can  be.  This  is  Christianity,  in  fact ;  which 
comes  in  after  the  work  of  Christ  was  done,  to  save  the  soul 
before  He  again  comes  to  save  the  body.  It  is  exactly  within 
tliat  interval  that  we  find  ourselves  now. 

But  there  is  another  thing  besides  salvation,  and  that  is  the 
kingdom  of  God  in  mystery,  for  it  is  not  yet  manifested.  The 
Lord  Jesus  is  exalted,  but  not  in  a  public  manner.  He  is  not 
yet  on  His  own  throne,  but  on  His  Father's.  Tluis,  M-hilc  there 
is  now  a  kingdom  of  God,  it  is  of  course  in  a  mysterious  way 
with  its  own  distinctive  principles  accordingly.  None  who  bear 
His  name  can  escape  the  responsibility  of  such  a  place  of  privi- 
lege ;  while  those  who  are  in  the  secret  by  the  S[)irit  suffer  with 
Him  now,  as  they  walk  in  grace  and  will  be  glorified  together. 


Besides  salvation  and  the  kingdom,  there  is  a  still  more 
wondrous  work  going  on  at  the  same  time — the  calling  of  the. 
church.  Let  me  warn  you  against  confounding  these  things. 
This  confusion  has  been  one  of  the  early  causes  of  the  ruin  of 
Christendom,  and  essentially  characterises  popery,  which  could 
not  subsist  without  it.  Papists  abuse  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  to 
get  earthly  power.  But  it  is  gross  ignorance  of  the  word  of  God. 
The  Lord  Jesus  always  draws  a  marked  distinction  between  the 
church  and  the  kingdom,  as  in  Matt.  xvi.  xviii. 

These  three  things  then  go  on  now  :  first,  the  salvation  of  the 
soul ;  secondly,  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  of  heaven,  as  the  case 
may  be,  which  differ  somewhat  but  are  substantially  the  same 
great  fact ;  and  thirdly  also,  the  church,  the  body  of  Christ. 
This  last  was  in  a  general  way  intimated  in  the  portion  of  the 
chapter  we  had  before  us  under  the  figure  of  the  two  wave-loaves. 

We  saw,  further,  that  in  the  corner  of  the  field  corn  was  to 
be  left.  I  do  not  mean  by  this  that  members  of  Christ  will 
be  left  behind  by  the  Lord  when  He  comes  for  His  own,  but 
that  God's  Spirit  will  work  and  that  believers  wnll  be  called 
after  the  church  is  gone.  They  will  be  found  in  that  little 
interval  that  follows  in  the  last  or  seventieth  week  of  Daniel. 

If  any  one  wishes  to  trace  the  history  of  this  transitional 
space,  the  details  of  it  will  be  found  in  the  central  parts  of  the 
Revelation  and  the  latter  half  of  Daniel.  There  may  be  read 
the  full  answer  to  the  question  of  the  corn  which  is  to  be  left 
in  the  corners  of  the  field. 

The  Feast  of  Trumpets. 

Having  given  this  brief  summary  of  what  was  before  us  in 
the  central  portion  of  the  chapter,  we  find  ourselves  in  presence 
of  an  entirely  new  scene  from  verse  24 :  "  Speak  unto  the  children 
of  Israel,  saying.  In  the  seventh  month  in  the  first  day  of  the 
month,  shall  ye  have  a  sabbath,  a  memorial  of  blowing  of 
trumpets."     So  far  from  the  gospel  being  a  continuous  work  to 


the  end  of  the  world,  as  many  suppose,  we  see  here  that  the 
Lord  will  begin  a  fresh  testimony  with  a  suited  instrumentality 
for  this  new  work  when  the  church  is  gone.  Observe  that  it  is 
said  here  "  in  the  seventh  month  :  "  this  was  the  last  month  in 
which  Jehovah  instituted  a  feast.  He  brings  to  a  completion 
the  circle  of  His  ways  on  the  earth  and  for  Israel. 

In  the  very  beginning  then  of  this  closing  period  of  God's 
dealings,  we  have  what  ?  "A  memorial  of  blowing  of  trumpets." 
God  then  is  inaugurating  a  fresh  testimony.  The  trumpet  is 
always  a  figure  of  God's  intervention  to  bring  in  some  signal 
change.  It  may  be  for  judgment,  as  we  find  in  some  cases  ;  or 
it  may  be  a  distinct  testimony  in  grace,  as  we  know  in  other 
cases.  It  is  clearly  a  loud  summons  from  God  to  people  on  the 
earth.  And  here  we  find  it  is  not  merely  a  blowing  of  trumpets, 
but  "  a  memorial "  of  blowing  of  trumpets.  It  is  a  recall  of  what 
had  long  passed  out  of  memory.  It  is  God  calling  to  mind  what 
had  once  been  before  Him,  but  long  dead  and  gone.  "What  can 
this  be  ?  It  is  the  recall  of  His  ancient  people  on  the  earth.  The 
Jew  is  again  brought  into  remembrance  before  God.  No  wonder 
that  there  should  be  such  "  a  memorial  of  blowing  of  trumpets ! " 
Hundreds,  one  might  say  thousands,  of  years  had  passed  since 
they  had  stood  before  Him  as  His  people.  The  return  from 
Babylon  was  only  a  partial  work  :  as  a  whole,  Israel  never 
returned  but  were  dispersed  all  over  the  world.  Where  was 
the  bulk  of  them  ?  They  were  lost  among  the  Gentiles  ;  and  so 
to  this  day  they  have  remained  in  a  peculiar  condition,  unlike  any 
other  since  the  world  began.  They  are  in  all  countries  without 
possessing  their  own,  and  yet  a  people  ;  they  are  without  a  king, 
and  yet  a  people  ;  without  a  prince,  and  yet  a  people  ;  without 
the  true  God,  without  a  false  god,  and  yet  a  people ;  a  stand- 
ing rebuke  to  the  infidel,  yet  largely,  deeply  infidel  themselves  ! 

But  that  very  people  are  yet  to  return  to  their  land,  and  seek 
Jehovah  their  Lord  and  David  their  king  ;  and  shall  fear 
Jehovah  and  His  goodness  in  the  latter  days.    But  what  does  God 


do  in  the  first  place  ?  He  awakens  them.  The  day  of  shadows 
is  gone  for  ever.  The  cross  of  Christ  has  closed  unrealities.  By 
the  power  of  His  resurrection  the  Christian  is  introduced  into  the 
new  creation.  The  old  is  gone,  the  new  come  ;  and  before  God 
we  have  our  place  in  Christ.  "When  this  work  is  finished, 
grace  will  begin  to  act  in  Israel,  and  they  will  be  awakened. 

Nothing  more  distinctly  proves  that  God  will  have  done  with 
the  Christian ;  for  the  gospel  goes  out  to  the  Gentiles  (though  to  the 
Jew  first),  and  in  the  church,  as  in  Christ,  there  is  neither  Jew 
nor  Greek.  The  Feast  of  Trumpets  is  God's  taking  up  Israel 
afresh  to  awaken  them.  Undeniably  then  this  feast  is  after  and 
quite  distinct  from  Passover  and  Pentecost  in  which  we  have 
our  interest ;  and  the  first  thing  disclosed  in  it  is  God's  loud 
summons  to  a  people  who  once  had  a  place  before  Him  and 
again  Come  into  remembrance  for  mercy,  not  judgment.  It  is 
evident  that  this  could  not  consistently  apj)ly  to  the  gospel 
that  has  been  going  out  since  Christ's  death  and  resuixection. 
We  have  had  our  sacrifice  and  call  to  practical  holiness  and  the 
gift  of  the  Spirit  long  ago.  But  when  God  has  done  with  our 
blessing,  the  chapter  reveals  that  in  the  seventh  month  dead 
Israel  is  to  be  raised  from  the  gi'ave  by  God's  trumpet,  as 
Ezekicl  predicted  long  after  (chap,  xxxvii).  As  this  is  clearly  a 
new  work,  let  us  trace  what  light  other  Scriptures  throw  upon  it. 

Let  me  take  you  to  the  Psalms.  There  you  will  find  how  truly 
they  and  the  prophets  agree  witli  this  figure  in  the  law.  See 
Psalm  Ixxxi.  There  is  a  plain  enough  testimony  as  to  its  force  : 
"  Sing  aloud  unto  God  our  strength  ;  make  a  joyful  noise  unto 
the  God  of  Jacob.  Take  a  psalm  and  bring  hither  the  timbrel, 
the  pleasant  harp  with  the  psaltery.  Blow  up  the  trumpet  in 
the  new  moon,  in  the  time  appointed,  on  our  solemn  feast  day." 
If  men  were  not  prejudiced,  none  would  deny  the  application  to 
Israel.  The  moon,  that  luminary  which  wanes  and  loses  her 
brightness,  once  more  renews  her  light.  How  strikingly  is  this 
to  be  verified  iu  the  Jew  !    You  could  not  say  it  of  the  church 



or  Christendom.  The  apostasy  of  the  Gentile  is  fatal.  Take 
Babylon  ;  and  what  does  Scripture  teach  as  to  this  ?  Babylon 
never  recovers  the  old  light  ;  Babylon  is  the  corrupt  woman 
that  assumes  the  credit  of  being  the  bride  whilst  false  to  Christ, 
a  mere  harlot  with  the  kings  of  the  earth  ;  and  her  end  will  be 
judgment  and  destruction  :  no  renovation  for  her  ;  no  new  moon 
shining  out  in  fresh  strength  and  brightness.  Babylon  will 
never  rise  again.  Destruction  is  determined,  and  determined 
from  the  Lord  God,  but  by  the  hand  of  the  revived  Eoman 
empire  and  its  satellite  kings,  avenging  those  she  had  corrupted 
too  long.  It  is  quite  different  with  Israel,  which  never  had  the 
privileges  of  the  church.  The  Jew  was  under  the  law  :  what 
did  he  know  of  being  under  grace  as  we  are  ?  By  and  by 
Israel  will  be  put  under  the  new  covenant,  but  this  cannot  take 
place  till  the  trumpets  have  blown  once  more,  and  the  new 
moon  is  shining,  as  we  hear  in  the  Psalm,  the  new  moon  at 
the  time  appointed.  The  language  is  suited  for  Israel,  and  not 
for  the  church.  They  sing  and  make  a  joyful  noise  to  the  God  of 
Jacob.  Why  confound  this  with  the  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  ?     Why  deny  their  hope  of  mercy? 

It  is  a  mischievous  perversion  to  apply  everything  of  the  sort 
(the  blessing  at  least,  not  the  curse)  to  the  church.  Are  we  not 
blessed  in  heavenly  places  ?  We  are  entitled  to  take  delight  in 
these  promises,  but  then  it  is  not  truly  to  enjoy  them  if  we 
appropriate  them  to  ourselves.  Let  us  rejoice  to  know  them  as 
yet  in  store  for  other  people,  even  Israel,  in  the  latter  days. 

If  I  know  any  converted,  am  I  to  be  jealous  of  their  blessing  ? 
Am  I  not  to  rejoice  that  the  grace  of  God  that  visited  me  is  thus 
going  out  to  many  others  ?  that  it  will  embrace  a  larger  circle  by 
and  by  ?  So  here,  when  we  see  in  the  Scriptures  that  poor  guilty 
Israel  is  to  emerge  from  the  grave,  from  their  long  lasting 
and  dense  darkness  of  unbelief,  why  wish  it  to  be  for  the  church? 
Indeed  it  is  to  lower  our  character  of  blessing  from  heaven 
to    earth.      Let   us    rather   rejoice    that    at  length    God  will 


awaken  His  people  and  accomplish  all  His  purpose  in  them 
here  below. 

And  here  let  me  briefly  call  your  attention  to  a  passage 
on  this  subject  very  poorly  rendered  in  our  translation.  It  is 
Luke  ii.  32,  "  A  light  to  lighten  the  Gentiles,  and  the  glory  of 
Thy  people  Israel."  It  should  be  really  "  A  light  for  revelation 
of  [the]  Gentiles."  I  understand  this  to  mean  that  Christ  is  a 
light  for  bringing  Gentiles  into  divine  view,  and  that  it  is  ac- 
complishing now,  besides  His  being  the  glory  of  Israel  by  and  by. 
The  Gentiles,  instead  of  being  in  darkness  as  they  once  were  in  the 
ways  of  God,  have,  as  privilege  and  responsibility,  the  true  tes- 
timony of  God.  Not  before  the  millennium  wiU  He  be  the  glory 
of  Israel.  The  Gentiles  were  once  in  the  dark  as  the  Jew  is 
now  ;  ere  long  the  Lord  will  come  for  the  glory  of  His  people 
Israel.  ^  Luke's  is  the  only  Gospel  wliere  we  have  the  coming  of 
Christ  thus  viewed  as  present  light  for  revealing  the  Gentiles 
and  as  future  glory  for  Israel.  I  conceive  this  to  be  the  true 
interpretation  of  the  passage,  and,  when  saying  so,  I  do  not  mean 
in  a  half  sort  of  way.  It  is  important  we  should  seize  the  in- 
tended real  bearing  of  the  word  of  God.  We  must  not  be  too 
hasty  in  assuming  it ;  but  when  w^e  know  that  we  have  got  it, 
let  us  hold  it  fast  and  use  it  for  the  Lord. 

The  eighty-first  Psalm  then  speaks  of  the  blowing  of  trum- 
pets distinctly  in  connection  with  Israel.  No  one  doubts  there 
is  the  iigure  of  a  trumpet  for  ourselves — in  general  as  in  1  Cor. 
xiv.,  or  precisely  as  in  1  Cor.  xv. ;  but  tlien  it  is  never  in  our 
case  a  memorial  of  blowing  of  tnimpets.  Thus  the  "  last  trump  " 
is  a  blessed  and  solemn  word  as  to  us.  Wliat  is  its  connection  ? 
It  was  a  figure  taken  from  the  military  usages  of  the  Eomans, 
then  familiar  to  everybody.  "VVe  must  remember  that  the 
liomans  were  at  that  time  masters  of  the  world,  and  that  people 
knew  too  well  what  their  legions  were.  Few  and  distant  were 
the  places  where  men  did  not  feel  the  grinding  iron  bondage  of 
that  imperial  power.  I  think  it  is  Josephus  who  gives  an  ac- 
count of  their  encampment,  and  lets  us  know  the  various  and 


successive  signals  given  for  the  different  movements  of  the 
army.  But  finally  there  was  the  "last  trump  ;"  and,  the  mo- 
ment this  sounded,  they  all  moved  off.  This  may  serve  to 
explain  the  Spirit's  application  of  the  phrase  to  the  final  sum- 
mons of  His  people  for  meeting  the  Lord  in  the  air. 

It  may  be  well  to  look  at  another  Scripture,  Isa.  xxvii.  12  : 
"  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  on  that  day,  that  Jehovah  shall  beat 
off  from  the  channel  of  the  river  into  the  stream  of  Egypt,  and 
ye  shall  be  gathered  one  by  one,  0  ye  children  of  Israel."  This 
is  the  gathering  not  of  believers  to  heaven,  but  of  the  children 
of  Israel  to  their  land.  "And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day, 
that  the  great  trumpet  shall  be  blown  ;  and  they  shall  come 
which  were  ready  to  perish  in  the  land  of  Assyria  and  the  out- 
casts in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  shall  worship  Jehovah  in  the 
holy  mount  at  Jerusalem."  Is  not  the  application  evident  and 
sure  ?  "  Eeady  to  perish  "  would  not  apply  to  the  gathering  of 
the  church  to  heaven.  We  will  be  glorified  in  that  day — a  very 
different  thing  from  their  being  ready  to  perish.  It  is  clear  that, 
just  before  God  interferes,  the  people  are  to  be  in  the  last  ex- 
tremity of  trial,  being  set  upon  by  all  their  enemies. 

As  long  as  Israel  is  unnoticed  or  chastised  by  God,  the  Gen- 
tiles can  be  peaceable  ;  but  directly  there  is  any  movement  for 
good  going  on,  and  God  is  working  to  make  Israel  the  head  and 
not  the  tail,  the  old  enmity  will  soon  follow.  In  that  day,  then, 
they  shall  be  gathered  by  God  to  Jerusalem.  It  is  not  Jerusalem 
above,  where  our  portion  is  by  grace  ;  but  Jerusalem  on  earth, 
where  Jehovah  in  due  time  shall  reign  according  to  His  good- 
ness and  promises  many.  This  awakening  of  Israel  then  is 
clearly  what  answers  to  the  feast  of  Trumpets. 

It  is  written  in  Matt.  xxiv.  29,  "  Immediately  after  the  tri- 
bulation of  these  days" — this  may  illustrate  their  being  ready  to 
perish — "  shall  the  sun  be  darkened,  and  the  moon  shall  not 
give  her  light,  and  the  stars  shall  fall  from  heaven,  and  the 
powers  of  the  heavens  shall  be  shaken  ;  and  then  shall  appear 


the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  in  heaven.  And  then  shall  all  the 
tribes  of  the  earth  mourn,  and  they  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man 
coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  with  power  and  great  glory. 
And  He  shall  send  His  angels  with  a  great  sound  of  a  trumpet, 
and  they  shall  gather  together  His  elect  from  the  four  Avinds, 
from  one  end  of  the  earth  to  the  other."  The  context  proves 
that  His  elect  here  are  of  Israel,  not  elect  Christians.  This 
remark  may  not  satisfy  some,  who,  whenever  they  see  any  good 
tiling  held  out  in  Scripture,  instantly  assume  that  it  must  be  for 
the  church.  But  we  can  afford  to  rejoice  in  the  future  gather- 
ing of  Israel.  Have  our  brethren  learnt  the  "parable  of  the 
fig  tree"  ?  What  means  the  fig  tree  ?  Not  more  surely  is  the 
rose  tlie  emblem  of  one  part  of  our  land  and  the  thistle  of  an- 
other I  could  name,  than  the  fig  tree  was  similarly  used  of  Israel. 
"  When  its  branch  is  yet  tender  and  putteth  forth  leaves,  ye  know 
that  summer  is  nigh."  They  have  had  their  long  winter,  and  now 
the  Sun  of  righteousness  is  rising  with  healing  on  His  wings. 
This  may  suffice  to  confirm  the  meaning  of  the  Feast  of  Trumpets. 

The  Day  of  Atonement. 

Next  we  come  to  a  still  more  solemn  feast,  the  great  Day  of 
Atonement,  from  verse  27  :  "  Also  on  the  tenth  day  of  this 
seventh  month  there  shall  be  a  day  of  atonement."  And  it  is 
well  that  we  should  observe  liow  events  are  crowding  on  during 
this  eventful  month.  God  is  finisliing  His  work  on  the  earth. 
He  is  going  to  put  out  the  evil  that  had  so  long  ravaged  among 
men,  and  to  bring  His  ancient  people  into  fulness  of  blessing. 

On  this  day  Israel  are  to  be  brought  under  the  atonement  of 
Christ.  For  first  let  me  remind  you  how  impossible  it  is  to 
think  that  this  day  can  be  for  us  in  the  chronological  scheme  of 
the  feasts.  We  have  seen  Christ  as  our  sacrifice  in  the  Pass- 
over long  ago,  and  do  not  want  it  a  second  time  here  :  to  repeat 
the  work  for  us  would  be  to  impeach  its  everlasting  value.  It 
is  really  the  work  of  Christ  applied  to  Israel.     They  had  the 


testimony  to  the  Lamb  ;  but  they  refused  it.  We  meanwhile 
by  grace  have  been  brought  into  the  blessing.  Are  they  to  be  left 
out  ?  Assuredly  for  a  time  only.  The  day  of  Atonement  in  the 
seventh  month,  so  long  following  the  Passover,  indicates,  not 
that  the  work  is  to  be  done  over  again,  but  that  there  is  to  be  a 
second  application  of  that  work,  and  of  course  to  a  different 
people.  Do  you  ask  me  for  Scripture  proof  of  this  ?  My 
answer  is  John  xi.  51,  52:"  And  this  spake  he  not  of  himseK; 
but,  being  high  priest  that  year,  he  prophesied  that  Jesus  should 
die  for  that  nation  ;  and  not  for  that  nation  only,  but  that  also 
He  should  gather  together  in  one  the  children  of  God  that  were 
scattered  abroad."  In  this  passage  then  we  have  most  clearly 
put  this  double  aspect  of  the  work  of  Christ ;  but  "  that  nation," 
the  Jews,  refused  it,  for  it  was  to  the  Jew  first  that  the  offer  was 
made.  Next,  you  notice,  it  is  not  only  for  that  but  to  gather  in 
one  the  children  of  God.  They  are  both  saved  and  also  gathered 
into  one.  It  is  the  church  baptized  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  But 
then  there  remains  for  Israel  their  blessing  by  and  by.  It  is  sus- 
pended for  the  present ;  but  the  precious  blood,  the  death,  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  in  all  its  efficacy  cannot  fail  for  them  also — for  the 
very  people  who  of  old  refused  it.  How  patient  the  grace  of  God  ! 
On  the  tenth  of  the  seventh  month,  in  God's  time,  the  day 
will  surely  come  ;  and  you  may  find  the  most  sensible  difference 
in  the  language  employed  here  and  that  which  is  used  of  us : 
"  And  ye  shall  afflict  your  souls,  and  offer  an  offering  made  by 
fire  unto  Jehovah."  You  do  not  find  such  words  as  these  under 
the  paschal  lamb  ;  and  no  wonder.  For  God  will  make  them 
feel  their  sins,  as  He  could  not  be  unobservant  of  their  long 
unbelief ;  and  when  their  day  of  blessing  comes,  do  you  think 
they  wiU  be  insensible  ?  Is  it  conceivable  that  Israel  will  regard 
themselves  as  other  sinners  ?  Certainly  not.  They  will  say.  We 
are  the  guiltiest  people  on  earth.  The  Messiali,  the  Christ  of 
God,  was  sent  to  us,  and  we  refused  Him.  He  was  not  yours 
yet  you  bowed  to  Him.     It  is  the  Messiah  rejected  by  Israel 


who  is  become  the  suffering  yet  exalted  Son  of  man,  and  the 
Gentiles  do  hear  Him. 

Joseph  rejected  by  his  brethren  was  in  another  land  exalted 
to  the  throne  ;  and  there  too  he  had  a  bride  unknown  to  his 
brethren,  while  next  to  the  one  who  set  him  in  the  highest  place. 
And  when  the  true  Joseph  presents  himself  to  the  sons  of  Israel, 
will  they  not  afflict  their  souls  as  Joseph's  brethren  did  when 
the  house  of  Pharaoh  heard?  There  never  was  so  genuine  a  mourn- 
ing as  this  for  the  seed  of  Jacob.  And  so  yet  more,  yea  incom- 
parably, will  it  be  in  the  day  that  is  hastening.  And  it  could  not 
be  otherwise,  if  God  wrought  real  repentance  as  He  will  in 
Israel.  The  day  of  atonement  bears  the  distinct  mark  of  what 
will  only,  or  at  least  most  fuUy,  apply  to  His  people  in  that 
future  day,  when  God's  plans  for  the  earth  are  being  completed. 

But  this  is  not  all.  In  verse  28  we  read,  "And  ye  shall  do  no 
work  in  that  same  day ;  for  it  is  a  day  of  atonement  to  make  an 
atonement  for  you  before  Jehovah  your  God."  Could  this  be 
said  so  fittingly  and  emphatically  to  any  other  people  ?  Were 
they  not  the  people  of  all  others  who  boasted  of  their  works,  and  so, 
going  about  to  establish  their  own  righteousness,  "stumbled  at  the 
stumbling-stone"  ?  Acceptable  works  are  found  only  in  believers. 
We  know  that  those  who  have  the  Spirit  of  God  working  in  them 
really  show  forth  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  and  do  not  boast. 
Where  all  is  felt  to  be  of  grace,  how  could  they  boast  ?  Others 
who  slight  faith  and  consequently  talk  of  the  law  do  in  fact 
nothing.  The  righteousness  of  the  law  is  fulfilled  in  those  who 
are  under  grace,  not  law.  The  Jew  boasted  but  stumbled  over 
the  lowly  ISTazarene,  the  crucified  Saviour  ;  but  it  will  not  be  so 
in  that  day,  when  the  reality  of  faith  will  not  only  work  repentance 
but  exclude  pretension  to  work.  Not  that  works  will  not  follow, 
but  the  day  of  atonement  will  shut  out  everything,  if  I  may  so 
say,  but  Christ,  their  propitiation  and  siibstitute ;  so  that  their 
self-loathing  will  be  as  complete  as  their  abandonment  of  their 
own  works.     The  very  fact  of  their  now  believing  what  God 


had  done  for  tliem  in  Christ  makes  them  ashamed  of  the  least 
reference  to  any  works  of  their  own. 

There  are  the  two  effects  :  on  the  one  hand,  affliction  of  soul 
in  the  confession  of  their  sins  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  no 
mingling  any  work  of  their  own  with  that  which  Christ  suffered 
for  them  before  God.  In  verse  29  you  see  the  same  sentiment 
repeated  :  "  For  whatsoever  soul  it  be  that  shall  not  be 
afflicted  in  that  same  day,  he  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  his 
people.  And  whatsoever  soul  it  be  that  doeth  any  work  in  that 
same  day,  the  same  soul  will  I  destroy  from  among  his  people." 
Again,  in  verse  32  :  "  It  shall  be  unto  you  a  sabbath  of  rest,  and 
ye  shall  afflict  your  souls."  The  two  things,  no  work  and  afflic- 
tion of  soul,  mark  this  day  of  atonement.  How  blessed  when 
Israel  know  and  feel  this !  And  here  again  I  may  appeal  to 
other  parts  of  Scripture.  Let  me  refer  you  now  to  one  of  the  pro- 
phets in  connection  with  this  day  of  atonement,  Zech.  xii.  9-14  : 
"And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day,  that  I  wiU  seek  to 
destroy  all  the  nations  that  come  against  Jerusalem."  You  see 
the  nations  are  now  jealous  and  hostile  to  Israel.  "  And  I  will 
pour  upon  the  house  of  David,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace  and  of  supplications."  Is  not 
this  the  day  of  atonement  ?  "  And  they  shall  look  upon  Me 
■whom  they  have  pierced,  and  they  shall  mourn  for  Him."  It  is 
a  day  of  afflicting  their  souls  :  "  As  one  mourneth  for  his  only 
son,  and  shall  be  in  bitterness  for  him,  as  one  that  is  in  bitter- 
ness for  his  first  born."  "  In  that  day  there  shall  be  a  great 
mourning  in  Jerusalem,  as  the  mourning  of  Hadadrimmon  in 
the  valley  of  Megiddon.  And  the  land  shall  mourn,  every 
family  apart,  and  their  wives  apart."  Conscience  leads  one  to 
be  alone  with  God,  that  confession  may  be  true  and  deep.  Such 
is  the  effect  of  real  Spirit- wrought  sorrow ;  for  the  conscience, 
when  it  is  thus  really  reached  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  always 
isolates  itself — it  makes  the  soul  desire  to  go  alone  to  God. 
To  whom  alas !  could  I  tell  out  honestly  all  I  am  ?     What  good 


would  it  do  to  any  one  else  ?  It  might  do  harm.  It  is  to  God 
then  we  must  go,  and  to  God  we  must  confess.  And  it  is  good 
for  the  soul ;  for  God  wants  sterling  honesty ;  He  wants  guile  to 
be  taken  away  ;  and  this  is  accomplished  by  His  own  grace.  It 
is  the  day  of  atonement,  when  Israel  hide  not  like  Adam,  but 
their  sins  are  poured  out  into  the  bosom  of  God. 

"  Every  family  apart."  So  close,  so  real,  is  the  work  that  it 
is  said,  even  "  their  wives  apart  :"  the  nearest  and  closest  rela- 
tionships are  apart,  that  there  may  be  now,  for  the  first  time, 
"  truth  in  the  inward  parts."  And  what  are  the  families  named  ? 
"  The  family  of  the  house  of  David  apart,  and  their  wives  apart ; 
the  family  of  the  house  of  Nathan  apart,  and  their  wives  apart." 
AVhy  David  and  why  Nathan  ?  Once  there  was  a  time  when  the 
king  trembled  as  he  stood  thoroughly  convicted,  and  the  faithful 
prophet  was  strengthened  of  God  to  convict  him  :  "  Thou  art  the 
man."  Now  what  a  change  !  It  is  no  humbled  king  nor  convict- 
ing prophet.  All  are  convicted,  and  so  profoundly  filled  with  the 
sense  each  of  his  own  sins,  that  they  feel  thoroughly  the  need  to 
be  alone  with  God.  It  is  not  only  real  but  deep  work ;  it  is  not 
the  mere  effect  of  feeling  or  sympathy  fed  by  a  weeping  crowd. 
They  go  alone,  each  before  God,  that  all  may  be  out  and  clear. 
And  surely  this  should  be  a  word  of  warning  as  to  the  danger  in 
these  days  of  multitudinous  meetings,  revivals,  etc.  I  do  not  say 
it  to  weaken  any  one's  confidence,  but  that  all  may  see  how  mo- 
mentous it  is  for  souls  to  get  alone  with  God  as  to  their  sins. 

Nor  is  this  the  only  picture ;  we  have  two  others  to  com- 
plete the  scene.  "  The  family  of  the  house  of  Levi  apart,  and 
their  wives  apart ;  the  family  of  Shimei  apart,  and  their  wives 
apart."  The  margin  gives  "  Symeon  "  as  the  alternative,  and  so 
does  the  oldest  version,  the  Septuagint.  Of  course  there  is  a 
difference  of  opinion  as  to  this  as  in  all  things  ;  but  it  is  a  com- 
mon thing  in  Scripture  to  find  two  names  for  the  same  person, 
as,  for  instance,  Paul  and  Saul,  Silas  and  Silvanus,  Jude  and 
Thaddeus.     But  if  we  accept  the  view  of  the  Greek  translators, 


they  were  two  sons  of  Jacob  of  painful  notoriety  in  their  earliest 
history.  It  was  revenge  then  brought  them  together.  No  doubt 
the  Gentile  was  guilty  of  gross  wrong,  and  dishonoured  their 
sister  ;  but  their  wrath  was  cruel,  and  their  revenge  as  deceitful 
as  outrageous,  and  Jacob  was  ashamed  of  his  unworthy  sons,  who 
had  been  united  in  deadly  purpose  under  the  guise  of  religion. 
But  now  they  have  found  the  Saviour,  or  rather  the  Saviour  has 
found  them,  and  they  are  confessing  each  his  own  sins.  Thou- 
sands of  years  had  passed  over  ;  but  here  are  the  descendants 
of  these  two  fathers  in  Israel  bowing  down  before  the  Lord  who 
died  for  them.  This  is  the  true  meaning  of  tlie  Day  of  Atone- 
ment as  applicable  here  to  Israel ;  and  let  us  rejoice  that  God 
will  extend  thus  His  grace,  through  that  blessed  Saviour,  even  to 
guilty  Israel,  kept  for  tliis  and  other  great  ends  of  God. 

The  Feast  of  Tabernacles. 

Then  begins  the  last  feast  in  verse  34 :  "  Speak  unto  the 
children  of  Israel,  saying.  The  fifteenth  day  of  this  seventh 
month  shall  be  the  feast  of  tabernacles  for  seven  days  unto 
Jehovah."  For  seven  days  !  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  we  have 
had  nothing  about  seven  days  since  the  feast  of  Unleavened 
Bread,  and  this,  as  I  showed,  signified  our  walking  in  sincerity  and 
truth,  in  Christian  holiness,  the  true  import  of  that  feast,  because 
Christ  our  Passover  was  sacrificed  for  us.  It  is  the  whole  course 
of  those  who  are  under  the  pilgrimage  of  grace.  Now  here  are 
seven  other  days  for  a  different  purpose  ;  and  what  are  they  ? 
Seven  days  of  glory  on  the  earth.  This  may  startle  some  ;  for 
there  are  very  many  Christians  who,  when  they  think  of  glory, 
always  connect  it  with  heaven.  So  they  speak  of  souls  having 
gone  to  glory  at  death.  Now  I  am  very  far  from  denying  that 
the  Christian  is  destined  to  heavenly  glory.  We  do  belong  dis- 
tinctly to  Christ  on  high.     We  depart  at  death  to  be  with  Him. 

But  I  am  far  from  thinking,  with  a  valued  countryman  of 
yours,  that  the  glorified  Church  is  to  live  and  reign  on  the  earth. 


It  is  not  in  a  likeness  of  heaven  we  are  to  dwell  for  ever ;  we 
are  going  to  heaven  itself.  The  Father's  house  does  not  mean 
the  earth,  however  sublimated  or  etherealised,  but  heaven,  and 
the  brightest  part  of  heaven.  It  is  not  some  distant  corner  or 
outskirt  of  glory  ;  it  is  where  the  Son  abides,  where  the  Father's 
love  satisfied  itself  in  receiving  the  Son.  There  shall  we  be  with 
Him,  in  the  Father's  house  of  many  mansions.  "  And  if  I  go 
and  prepare  a  place  for  you,  I  will  come  again,  and  receive  you 
unto  myself ;  that  where  I  am  there  ye  may  be  also."  It  is 
where  He  is.  The  portion  of  the  Christian  is  Christ  in  the  Father's 
house  ;  so  we  shall  be  ever  with  the  Lord.  He  would  not  tell 
us  so  if  it  would  raise  our  hopes  too  high.  He  did  so  tell  us  that 
He  might  inspire  us  with  the  same  expectation  that  filled  His 
own  breast.  The  bride  is  to  be  with  the  Bridegroom.  I  reject 
the  notion  therefore,  as  unfounded,  that  the  scene  of  our  glory  is 
to  be  on  the  earth ;  and,  no  matter  what  the  piety  of  men  who  have 
such  low  views,  I  reject  them  as  doubly  injurious.  They  deny 
the  Church's  glory  to  be  distinctively  heavenly,  and  they  do  not 
leave  room  for  Israel's  future  glory  according  to  promise  on  the 
earth.  It  is  really  therefore  a  mistake  of  grave  consequence, 
which  affects  our  interpretation  of  all  the  Bible,  and  confuses  the 
entire  scheme  of  God's  ways.  Hear  what  the  New  Testament 
teaches  :  "  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  hath  blessed  us  with  all  spiritual  blessings  in  heavenly 
places  in  Christ."  We  are  blessed  there  in  title  already  in  Christ 
as  we  shall  be  there  in  fact  with  Him  after  His  coming  for  us. 

But  in  the  portion  before  us  we  have  another  thing  brought 
out.  Here  it  cannot  mean  our  going  to  heaven,  for  we  do  not 
speak  of  "  days  "  there.  It  is  one  eternal  day  in  that  sphere  of 
unchanging  light  and  blessedness ;  and  by  a  figure  it  may  be 
called  very  well  the  "  day  of  eternity."  Indeed  this  is  the  way 
the  apostle  Peter  does  speak  in  the  last  verse  of  his  Second 
Epistle  :  "  To  Him  be  glory,  both  now  and  to  the  day  of  eternity." 
But  glory  will  assuredly  come  to  the  earth.      Thus  :  "  Arise, 


shine  ;  for  thy  light  is  come,"  etc.  WTiere  is  that  ?  In  heaven  ? 
No  ;  Zion  is  here  on  the  earth  ;  really  it  was  that  mountain  on 
which  the  king's  palace  was  built,  and  now  significant  of  grace 
yet  to  buUd  up  the  broken  house  of  Israel,  when  God  will  give 
them  the  true  David  ! 

Let  me  draw  your  attention  here  to  two  schools  of  theology, 
as  the  truth  in  question  is  of  practical  moment  as  well  as 
doctrinal.  It  may  be  instructive  to  see  how  both  fail  and  come 
short  of  what  the  Holy  Spirit  reveals  for  the  glory  of  God.  As 
to  this  then  we  find  these  two  schools  in  opposition.  One  says 
that  the  scene  of  future  glory  is  to  be  the  earth,  where  Christ 
died  and  God  has  wrought  so  graciously,  and  as  to  which  He  has 
promised  such  glorious  things.  Fully  do  I  admit  this  ;  but  their 
inference  as  to  our  being  glorified  there  is  unsound.  The  other 
school  holds  that  heaven  will  be  the  only  scene  of  glory,  and 
this  so  exclusively  as  almost,  if  not  quite,  to  forget  the  body  and 
its  future  resurrection  from  the  grave.  They  are  in  danger  of 
thinking  only  of  the  soul,  and  of  heaven  as  a  place  of  pure  spirit, 
which,  I  submit,  is  a  poor  substitute  for  the  Christian's  hope,  and 
not  at  all  what  the  word  of  God  teaches.  It  is  quite  true  and 
blessed  that  even  now  the  separated  spirit  goes  to  be  with  Christ ; 
and  no  believer  should  seek  to  weaken  this  truth.  A  recently- 
converted  robber  was  to  be  that  day  with  Him  in  paradise.  It  is 
lamentable  to  know  how  little  this  is  believed  by  modern  theo- 
logians ;  and  I  doubt  not  that  their  feebleness  here  is  due  to 
their  scanty  knowledge  of  Christ  and  redemption.  But  this 
intermediate  blessedness  is  not  resurrection ;  though  departed 
saints,  when  risen,  shall  be,  as  now,  in  the  "  paradise  of  God." 
As  the  paradise  of  Adam  was  the  brightest  spot  on  cartli,  so  the 
"  paradise  of  God  "  is  the  brightest  spot  in  heaven.  Sinful  man 
was  cast  out  of  the  one  ;  believing  man  is  received  into  the 
other.  Christ  was  the  first  fruits,  as  was  due  to  Him,  the  Son 
and  Saviour  ;  afterwards  those  that  are  Christ's  at  His  coming. 

But  there  is  another  thing,  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  has 


"  earthly  things,"  and  for  these  needs  new  birth  (John  iii.),  as  well 
as  for  "  heavenly  things."  So  it  will  neither  be  heaven  alone,  nor. 
the  earth  alone,  but  both.  (Compare  Eph.  i.  10  and  Col.  i.  20.)  In 
Scripture  faith  finds  no  real  difficulty,  and  is  far  larger  than 
theology,  which  is  invariably  short  of  the  truth  of  God.  Theo- 
logy is  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  man  to  reduce  the  word  of  God 
to  a  science,  and  a  science  for  man,  converted  or  not,  to  learn. 
No  wonder  that  this  is  always  a  total  failure,  as  it  deserves  to 
be.  You  cannot  squeeze  what  has  life  into  this  iron  vice  of  theirs 
without  destroying  its  strength  and  tissues  and  beauty.  Both 
heaven  and  earth  are  to  be  under  Christ,  the  distinct  but  united 
spheres  of  His  reign  to  God's  glory.  In  the  fulness  of  the  times 
God  is  going  to  gather  all  things  under  Christ ;  not  all  persons, 
for  this  will  never  be.  Alas  !  those  who  despise  the  Lord  Jesus 
will,  at  the  end,  be  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.  But  all  things, 
the  groaning  creation,  guilty  of  no  sin  but  suffering  from  the  sin 
of  man,  will  be  delivered  through  the  victory  of  the  Second  Man. 
For  this  we  and  it  are  waiting. 

It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that  the  earth  is  the  only  scene  of 
glory,  but  also  heaven.  I  might  prove  this  from  other  Scriptures 
besides  Ephesians  and  Colossians.  But  I  would  remind  you 
that  it  is  no  good  sign  to  require  many  passages.  One,  if  plain, 
is  conclusive.  Who  would  admire  the  state  of  soul  that,  when 
one  Scripture  is  given,  asks  for  another  ?  Even  if  you  had  only 
to  do  with  a  man's  word,  do  you  wish  him  to  repeat  the  same  thing 
half-a-dozen  times  over?  In  fact,  if  he  were  to  do  so,  it  ought 
rather  to  arouse  suspicions.  But,  if  such  is  the  case  with 
man,  is  it  not  most  dishonouring  to  God  to  look  for  ever  so  many 
assurances  from  Him  ?  I  grant  that  in  certain  cases  He  may 
present  the  same  thing  in  various  forms,  but  this  is  only  pure 
grace  in  consideration  of  the  weakness  of  man. 

But  I  direct  you  to  Ps.  Ixxiii.  24,  and  I  do  so  in  order  to 
clear  out  a  singular  mistake  of  our  translators.  There  we  read 
these  words,  a  favourite  text  with  many  :  "  Thou  shalt  guide  me 


with  Thy  counsel,  and  afterward  receive  me  to  glory  :"  very 
good  Christian  doctrine ;  but  is  it  the  object  of  the  Psalm  to 
teach  anything  of  the  sort?  Let  us  be  subject  to  Scripture. 
You  see  the  word  "/o  "  is  inserted.  And  what  is  the  reason  for  it  ? 
"  To  "  would  require  authority,  for  it  cannot  be  inserted  or  left 
out  in  this  sort  of  way.  The  truth  is  that  our  translators  could 
not  understand  the  meaning  of  the  words  as  they  stand,  especi- 
ally as  it  was  taken  for  granted  that  the  Psalm  was  speaking  of 
what  we  Christians  want  for  our  comfort ;  and  so  they  thought 
it  must  mean,  "  Thou  shalt  guide  me  with  Thy  counsel,  and 
afterward  receive  me  [to]  glory."  They  never  thought  of  the 
peculiar  hopes  of  Israel,  and  so  they  could  not  find  out  the 
meaning.  It  is  confusion  if  you  apply  these  to  the  Christian. 
But  then  they  did  not  know  anything  worth  mentioning  of  God's 
ways  for  the  future,  when  Christ  shall  reign  over  the  earth. 

Now,  let  me  tell  you,  people  are  learning  to  translate 
accurately,  whether  they  understand  the  meaning  or  not.  This 
may  not  be  pleasant,  stiU  it  is  more  honest ;  and  thus  grace  may 
the  sooner  use  some  one  else  to  help  them  to  the  meaning.  But, 
further,  I  may  say  that  one  of  our  American  kinsmen  has  lately 
brought  out  a  new  translation  of  the  Psalms.  The  late  Dr.  J.  A. 
Alexander,  of  Princeton,  was  a  man  not  to  be  despised.  His 
book  on  the  Psalms,  as  a  version,  is  respectable,  though  some 
of  us  would  think  its  exegesis  rather  dark.  He  did  not  under- 
staiid  what  he  was  writing  about ;  yet  he  was  a  scholar,  and 
trai^islates  uprightly  his  text.  But  let  me  add,  that  being  a 
scholar  will  never  enable  one  to  understand  the  Scripture.  The 
one  and  only  means  of  understanding  it  is  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
who  gives  us  God's  mind  in  it.  If  it  is  the  churcli  in  the  New 
Testament,  I  must  see  it  in  its  relation  to  the  Head ;  if  it  is 
Israel  in  the  law  or  the  Psalms,  I  must  see  them  as  they 
stand  related  to  their  Messiah. 

Now  the  late  Dr.  Alexander  never  saw  the  true  distinction 
between  Israel  and  the  Church,  but  being  honest  and  competent, 


though  he  did  not  know  -what  the  passage  meant,  he  translated 
it  as  it  really  stands,  "  In  or  by  Thy  counsel  Thou  wilt  guide  me, 
and  after  glory  Thou  wilt  take  me."  Now  what  is  the  meaning 
of  this  ?     The  last  clause  is  obscure,  he  says. 

The  Christian,  no  doubt,  is  received  now,  and  will  go  up  at 
the  coming  of  Christ  to  heavenly  glory;  but  His  dealings  with 
Israel  are  quite  different.  He  will  come  in  glory  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  their  enemies,  and  bring  them  in  deep  penitence  to 
Himself ;  and  then  they  will  be  received  as  His  people  before 
the  universe.  This  will  only  be  "  after  glory."  The  glory  will 
have  shone  first.  Take  Saul  of  Tarsus  for  an  instance,  though 
he  was  a  pattern  not  only  of  the  Jew  but  of  the  Gentile.  All 
will  remember  that  he  had  a  vision  of  the  Lord  in  glory,  and 
after  that  he  was  brought  into  acceptance  before  God. 

When  we  see  this,  it  helps  us  to  understand  how  the  chil- 
dren ^f  Israel  will  be  brought  into  their  blessedness.  There 
were  to  be  seven  days  of  suffering  grace,  as  we  have  now  (that 
is  quite  a  distinct  thing),  and  seven  days  of  glory  in  the  age  to 
come.  This  will  be  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  in  its  ordinary 
character  for  Israel  on  earth. 

Then,  further,  verse  39  :  "  Also  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the 
seventh  month,  when  ye  have  gathered  in  the  fruit  of  the  land, 
ye  shall  keep  a  feast  unto  Jehovah  seven  days."  When  they 
had  gathered  in  the  fruit  of  the  land,  when  the  harvest  was  past, 
and  the  vintage  over ;  what  is  the- meaning  of  this  ?  That  judg- 
ment will  have  taken  its  course.  The  harvest  is  that  character 
of  judgment  where  the  Lord  discriminates  the  good  from  the 
bad.  The  vintage  is  where  He  will  trample  down  wicked 
religion  unsparingly.  It  is  the  infliction  of  divine  judgment, 
and  mark,  it  is  of  the  living  :  the  judgment  of  the  dead  is  at  the 
end  of  the  kingdom,  which  is  not  spoken  of  here.  This  is  the 
judgment  of  the  quick  at  the  beginning  of  the  kingdom. 

Now  we  get  something  further  (verse  39)  :  "  Ye  shall  keep  a 
feast  unto  Jehovah  seven  days  :  on  the  first  day  shall  be  a 
sabbath,  and  on  the  eighth  day  shall  be  a  sabbath." 


It  is  not  only  that  there  is  a  complete  term  of  glory  as  we 
are  now  going  through  a  complete  term  of  grace.  In  one  fea- 
ture, we  may  see,  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  stands  distinct  from 
all  the  others  ;  and  what  is  that  ?  The  eighth  day.  There  has 
been  no  mention  of  this  in  the  other  feasts.  The  seven  days  we 
saw  were  glory  for  the  earth  ;  but  there  is  the  "  eighth  day  too." 
It  is  heavenly  and  eternal  glory !  So  it  is  not  "  days  "  now,  but 
this  one  "  day,"  "  the  eighth  day,"  and  therefore  it  has  a  begin- 
ning, but  it  will  never  have  an  end. 

We  have  seen  then  in  this  chapter — first,  the  purpose  of  God 
generally  sketched  ;  next,  the  mighty  work  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
with  the  holy  call  it  involves  on  all  blessed  by  it,  and  the 
witness  to  Christ's  resurrection  in  those  risen  with  Him.  But 
the  application  of  that  work  is  first  to  the  Gentiles  now  called 
in.  By  and  by,  too,  Israel  will  be  awakened  and  confess  their 
sins,  when  the  days  of  glory  dawn  on  earth,  and  not  only  this, 
but  with  a  glance  at  that  which  is  heavenly  and  eternal  in  the 
eighth  day. 

May  the  Lord  bless  His  own  word,  so  that  you  may  be 
simple  and  clear  and  wise  in  the  truth  unto  salvation !  And 
may  you  have  your  faith  strengthened  as  you  see  how  God  has 
given  a  complete  cycle  of  His  ways  in  one  of  the  most  ancient 
books  of  the  Bible.  Wlien  the  theological  professors  of  our  day 
are  misusing  their  position  to  give  currency  to  the  cavils  of  un- 
belief, which  have  lost  much  of  their  acceptance  even  in  free- 
thinking  Germany,  it  is  time  for  men  whose  fathers  valued  re- 
vealed truth  to  wake  up  to  these  insidious  efforts  at  undermin- 
ing their  faith  under  the  pretentious  claim  of  learning  and 
science.  The  best  of  all  answers  to  Satan  is  a  deepening  en- 
trance by  the  Holy  Spirit  into  the  truth,  and  an  enlarged  sense 
of  that  divine  wisdom  and  grace  in  the  word,  which  is  as  much 
superior  to  ^lohistic  and  Jehovistic  theories,  or  such  like 
vanities  and  speculations,  as  the  Second  man  is  above  the 
first.     "  Sanctify  them  by  Thy  word  :  Thy  word  is  truth." 


There  are  three  fruit-liearing  trees,  much  esteemed  and  culti- 
vated by  the  inhabitants  of  Palestine,  which  are  fruitful  in  in- 
struction for  us  who  possess  and  peruse  the  New  Testament. 
They  are  the  Olive  Tkee,  the  Tig  Tree,  and  the  Vine.  It  was 
these  of  which  Jothan  made  mention  in  his  parable  to  the  men  of 
Shechem,  which  furnish  parabolic  teaching  about  Gentiles,  Israel, 
and  Christians.  Privilege,  profession,  fruitfulness,  such  are  the 
topics  in  illustration  of  which  these  trees  are  severally  introduced. 
1.  The  Olive  Tree  furnishes  special  instruction  for  Gentiles, 
as  such,  in  the  way  of  dispensational  teaching.  We  meet  with  it 
once  in  this  manner  in  Eom.  xi.,  where  a  word  of  warning  is 
given  to  those  who  are  not  of  the  race  of  Israel.  Promises  be- 
longed to  Israel  as  the  children  of  Abraham  (Eom,  ix.  4).  To 
tlie  covenants  of  promise  Gentiles  were  strangers  (Eph.  ii.  12). 
Promises  there  were,  as  has  been  remarked,  about  Gentiles,  but 
not  to  them.  To  Abraham  were  they  made  and  to  his  seed 
(Gal.  iii.  16).  Israel,  on  the  ground  of  their  lineage  "after  the 
flesh,"  looked  for  the  fulfilment  and  enjoyment  of  them.  John 
the  Baptist  had  warned  them  how  mistaken  they  would  find 
themselves,  if  they  trusted  in  this  matter  to  natural  birth  with- 
out being  born  of  God.  God  could  of  the  stones  around  them 
raise  up  children  to  Abraham.  The  warning  was  in  vain,  as  far 
as  the  nation  was  concerned.  Tor  they  rejected  the  One  to  whom 
the  promises  made  to  Abraham  were  confirmed — that  One  was 
Christ,  the  patriarch's  seed.  God,  therefore,  has  cast  them  off 
nationally  for  a  time,  and  is  dealing  now  with  Gentiles.     It  is  of 



tliis  dispensation al  change  that  Paul  writes  in  Eom.  xi.,  and,  to 
illustrate  it  in  a  manner  within  the  comprehension  of  his  readers, 
makes  use  of  the  simile  of  an  olive  tree,  with  which  those  in  Italy 
■would  be  familiar.  From  this  tree,  a  good  olive  tree,  some  of  the 
branches  have  been  broken  off,  that  is  all  the  nation  of  Israel, 
except  the  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace,  who 
remain  branches  in  the  olive  tree,  where  they  had  always 

Into  this  same  tree  other  branches  have  been  grafted,  taken 
from  a  wild  olive  tree,  one  which  had  never  been  brought  under 
culture.  Now  these  are  the  Gentiles,  with  whom  God  is  at  pre- 
sent dealing  in  sovereign  goodness,  brought  thus  outwardly  into 
connection  with  Abraham,  the  root  of  promise — the  root,  to  carry 
out  the  figure,  of  the  olive  tree.  Before  the  cross  God  v>'as  deal- 
ing witli  Israel  as  the  elect  nation,  but  not  directly  with  the 
Gentiles.  Privileges  belonged  to  the  former  in  which  the  latter 
had  no  part.  The  Syrophoenician  woman  had  to  acknowledge  that. 
She  felt  it,  and  she  owned  it.  After  the  cross  a  new  feature  in 
God's  dealings  with  man  was  displayed.  The  privileges  which  had 
marked  Israel  as  God's  special  people  on  earth  they  enjoyed  no 
longer,  for  they  continued  in  unbelief.  The  aged  Simeon  had 
declared  that  the  child  he  held  in  his  arms  would  be  "  a  light  for 
revelation  of  the  Gentiles,"  to  bring  them  out  of  the  obscurity  in 
which  they  had  hitherto  been  dispensationally,  as  those  with 
whom  God  coidd  prominently  deal  in  goodness  ;  and  Paul  tcaclies 
us  this  took  place,  when  Israel  for  a  time,  as  a  nation,  was  cast  off. 

Advantages,  then,  Gentiles  now  possess  such  as  they  never  had 
before  the  cross.  The  root  of  promise  has  not  changed.  The 
olive  tree  has  not  been  cut  down,  but  some  branches  have  been 
broken  off,  and  branches  from  a  wild  olive  tree  haA'e  been  grafted 
in  on  the  principle  of  faith.  As  grafted  in  they  partake  of  the 
"  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree."  Privileges  are  theirs,  as 
brought  into  direct  association  with  the  root  of  promise,  Abra- 
ham, the   father  of  the  faithful.      AVhat  flows  from  the  root, 


therefore,  they  share  in  ;  "  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive 
tree"  they  partake,  being  as  Gentiles  grafted  in  by  faith  into 
the  line  of  promise  on  earth. 

Now  this  is  not  salvation,  for  they  might  be  "  cut  off."  It 
is  not  church  position,  for  church  position  is  new  both  to 
Jews  as  well  as  to  Gentiles  who  enjoy  it.  But  here  it  is,  Gentiles 
coming  in  to  share  the  privileges  on  earth  of  those  who,  as  faithful 
among  the  Jews,  had  never  lost  them.  We  say  on  earth,  for  the 
simile  of  the  tree  teaches  us,  that  the  position,  thus  illustrated,  is 
one  enjoyed  on  earth. 

"Would,  then,  the  Gentiles  continue  in  this  privileged  place  ? 
That  depended  upon  them.  "  If  thou  continue  in  goodness." 
Have  they  ?  One  must  surely  admit  they  have  not.  Excision, 
therefore,  must  take  place.  And,  if  the  natural  branches  abide 
not  in  unbelief,  they  shall  be  grafted  into  their  own  olive  tree. 
The  good  olive  tree  is  Israel,  the  root  is  Abraham  ;  and  the  ad- 
vantages Gentiles,  as  such,  now  possess,  they  cgn  lose  by  un- 
faithfulness, for  they  stand  in  that  place  only  by  faith.  God  is 
now  visiting  the  Gentiles  (Acts  xv.  14),  and  the  outward  result 
of  this  is  what  we  term  Christendom.  Privileges  those  possess 
who  are  part  of  Christendom,  but  these  privileges  entail  respon- 
sibility. Could  the  Gentile  glory  then  over  the  Jew,  the  branches 
broken  off  ?  He  could  not.  To  the  Jew  his  natural  place  was 
in  the  olive  tree,  it  was  only  from  his  sin  of  unbelief  that  he  was 
broken  off'.  To  the  Gentile  it  was  of  Divine  goodness  that  he 
was  there  at  all,  grafted  in  on  the  principle  of  faith,  to  be  con- 
tinued there  only  if  he  abode  in  God's  goodness.  All  those  then 
who  are  really  saved  are  in  the  olive  tree,  but  far  more  than  they 
are  numbered  amongst  its  branches.  It  takes  in  the  faithful  rem- 
nant of  Israel.  It  includes  all  Christendom.  The  Gentiles,  if 
once  cut  off,  will  never  be  restored.  The  Jews  may  be,  and  will, 
if  they  abide  not  in  unbelief.  How  truly  will  that  be  felt  and 
confessed  by  and  by,  when  that  which  Zech.  viii.  13  says,  shaU 
receive  its  accomplishment ' 


2.  The  Fig  Tree  suggests  teaching  of  a  dijEferent  order,  and 
was  used  as  an  illustration  to  a  different  audience.  The  Lord 
made  use  of  it  when  warning  Israel,  and  instructing  His  disciples 
(Luke  xiii.  6-9  ;  Matth.  xxi.  19-21  ;  Mark  xi.  12-14,  20-23).  Its 
fruit  makes  it  of  such  value.  .  If  the  tree  is  fmitless,  why  let  it 
occupy  the  ground  ?  Now  there  is  one  feature  in  the  fig  tree 
which  made  it  so  suited  to  depict  the  state  of  Israel.  Its  flowers 
are  formed  hefore  the  bursting  out  of  its  leaves.  Hence  the  pre- 
sence of  leaves  suggests  the  promise  and  appearance  of  fruit. 
One  sees  at  once,  then,  how  fit  an  emblem  such  a  tree  would  be 
of  Israel,  who  by  profession  were  God  s  peoj)le,  but  who,  never- 
theless, when  the  Lord  came,  proved  by  rejecting  Him  their  un- 
fruitfulness  for  God.  The  olive  tree,  as  an  evergreen,  fitly  repre- 
sents the  continuance  of  the  line  of  promise  on  earth,  which 
never  would  end,  even  in  appearance,  during  all  the  ages  that 
should  precede  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  in 
power  upon  earth.  As  the  olive  tree  from  its  character  suggests 
the  thought  of  continuance,  the  fig  tree  from  its  habit  is  well 
adapted  to  illustrate  profession,  which  should  be  accompanied  by 
the  proofs  of  fruitfulness.  And  if  it  lacks  such  proofs,  cutting 
down  surely  the  tree  richly  deserves.  God's  forbearance  then 
with  the  nation  of  Israel  till  the  cross,  the  parable  of  the  fig 
tree  in  Luke  xiii.  sets  forth.  The  sentence  on  the  barren  but  leaf- 
clothed  tree  on  Olivet  was  the  indication  of  the  carrying  out  of 
the  judgment  against  Israel,  of  which  the  Lord  had  previously 
warned  the  people.  A  tree  cut  down  ceases  to  be  seen  by  men. 
Israel,  as  an  ordered  nation,  would  cease  to  exist.  Profession 
without  fruitfulness  will  never  do  for  God. 

3.  Turning  to  the  Vine,  we  get  instruction  of  a  different 
character.     It  speaks  of,  and  to.  Christians  in  truth. 

God  had  a  vine,  which  He  had  brought  out  of  Egypt  :  tliat 
vine  was  Israel  (Ps.  Ixxx.  8-11).  A  Adne  which  is  unfruitful  is 
useless,  as  Ezekiel  (xv,  2-4)  reminded  his  countrymen.  The  Lord 
then,  in  John  xv.,  teaches  His  disciples  that  He  is  the  true  vine  ; 


hence  fruitfulness  in  them  could  only  be  produced  as  they  abode 
in  Him,  For  those  who  were  of  the  Jewish  race  this  teaching 
was  important  :  national  position,  a  lineage  after  the  flesh,  sncli 
would  not  avail.  They  must  abide  in  Christ  to  bear  fruit 
for  God  : — teaching,  too,  this  for  us,  useful,  needful  at  all 
times.  "  I  am  the  true  vine,  aud  my  Father  is  the  husbandman. 
Every  branch  in  me  that  beareth  not  fruit  he  taketh  away  :  and 
every  branch  that  beareth  fruit,  he  purgeth  it,  that  it  may  bring 
forth  more  fruit.  Now  ye  are  clean  through  the  word  which  I 
have  spoken  unto  you.  Abide  in  me,  and  I  in  you.  As  the 
branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself,  except  it  abide  in  the  vine ; 
no  more  can  ye,  except  ye  abide  in  me.  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are 
the  branches  :  he  that  abideth  in  me,  and  I  in  him,  the  same 
bringeth  forth  much  fruit :  for  without  me  ye  can  do  nothing. 
If  a  man  abide  not  in  me,  he  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  is 
withered ;  and  men  gather  them,  and  cast  them  into  the  fire, 
and  they  are  burned.  If  ye  abide  in  me,  and  my  words  abide 
in  you,  ye  shall  ask  what  ye  will,  and  it  shall  be  done  imto  you. 
Herein  is  my  Father  glorified,  that  ye  bear  much  fruit ;  so  shall 
ye  be  my  disciples  "  (John  xv.  1-8). 

When  we  come  to  the  Lord's  teaching  about  the  vine,  we  leave 
dispensational  truth  about  Gentiles  and  Jews,  and  come  to  that 
which  is  vitally  important.  But,  to  understand  it  aright  we  must 
ever  remember,  that  the  simile  of  a  tree  suggests  something  which 
is  upon  earth,  not  something  about  heaven.  Keeping  this  in 
mind,  w^e  shall  understand  the  bearing  of  what  He  says.  He 
speaks  of  that  which  is  seen  upon  earth  :  a  branch,  therefore, 
might  be  in  the  vine,  and  yet  be  unfruitful.  But  no  cue  coukl 
be  in  Christ  before  God  without  being  really  a  child  of  God.  If 
we  bring  in  standing  before  God  when  we  read  of  the  vine,  we 
shall  get  all  wrong.  If  we  remember  that  a  tree  is  a  simile  of 
something  existing  upon  earth,  we  shall  be  kept  right.  A  branch, 
therefore,  in  the  vine  is  a  professing  Christian.  There  might  be 
that  without  the  person  being  a  true  believer.     At  the  moment 


the  Lord  was  speaking  tliere  was  a  marked  illustration  of  it  in 
Judas  Iscariot.  He  was  one  of  the  twelve,  appeared  to  be  a  be- 
liever, was  a  branch  in  the  vine  ;  but  his  occupation  at  that  very 
moment  indicated  that  he  had  not  abode  in  Christ.  Mere  profes- 
sion, then,  would  not  do.  The  Lord,  however,  does  not  stop 
here.  He  is  not  merely  impressing  on  them  that  there  must  be 
reality  and  life  to  be  fruitful ;  He  is  telling  them  how,  and  how 
only,  they  can  be  fruitful,  viz.  by  abiding  in  Him.  The  curse  on 
the  fig  tree  showed  that  God  would  not  be  satisfied  without  fruit. 
The  Lord's  teaching  about  the  vine  makes  plain  how  fruitful- 
ness  can  be  ensured.  Professors  there  might  be,  there  have 
been,  there  are  still.  Of  such,  if  that  is  all  they  are  upon  earth, 
the  Lord  speaks  in  verse  6  ;  but  let  the  reader  remark  He  does 
it  in  language  which,  while  pointedly  showing  the  dreadful  future 
of  such,  carefully  guards  against  the  idea  of  any  real  Christian 
perishing.  Speaking  to  those  who  were  true.  He  says,  "  Ye." 
Describing  the  barren  professor.  He  says,  "Ifa  man"  etc.  There 
is  no  discouracrement  to  the  weakest  believer.  There  is  the  most 
solemn  warning  for  tliD  mere  professor. 


The  subject  on  wliicli  I  would  engage  tlie  attention  of  your 
readers  is  one  which  affects  the  whole  character  and  nature  of 
Christianity,  branching  out  into  what  is  really  mfidehty  on  one 
side,  and  abominable  heresies  on  the  other  ;  but  held  in  its  root 
principles  by  persons  who  would  utterly  reject  both.  It  is 
found  in  the  most  highly  esteemed  ministers  of  the  Free  Church 
of  Scotland  and  widely  spread  in  it,  in  the  Baptist  Colleges,  and 
taught  by  eminent  Baptist  ministers  in  the  United  States ; 
elaborately  developed  in  the  revived  energy  of  evangelicalism 
in  Germany,  whence  it  has  passed  in  a  gross  Puseyite  shape  to 
the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  in  the  States.  Its  full  doctrinal 
results  were  developed  in  Irvingism.  The  worst  kind  of  infi- 
delity is  based  on  it,  to  which  the  German  doctors  approach 
wonderfully  near. 

The  question  is  this  :  Was  Christ  in  incarnation  united  to 
humanity  to  renew  it  ?  or  is  the  life  of  believers  a  wholly  new 
life,  in  every  case,  and  in  the  case  of  the  church,  believers  united 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  Him  glorified  ?  Those  orthodox  in  the 
main  take  up  only  the  renewal  of  the  first  man  ;  the  full-blown 
doctrine  is  Christ's  union  with  fallen  man.  It  is  a  capital  ques- 
tion ;  because  one  makes  fallen  man,  the  first  Adam,  that  wliich 
is  taken  up  of  God  for  blessing  as  such,  to  which  the  "Word 
therefore  united  Himself,  and  that  (however  sinless  they  may 
hold  Christ  to  have  been  personally)  in  its  sinful  state,  before 
redemption  ;  the  other  looks  upon  man  in  the  flesh  as  utterly 


rejected  and  lost ;  that  Christ  stood  alone,  though  a  true  and 
very  man,  till  He  had  accomplished  redemption,  and  then,  when 
He  had  accomplished  it,  a  redemption  available  in  justification 
and  life  to  faith,  before  as  after  the  cross,  that  a  wholly  new 
nature  was  given,  in  which  man  enters  into  the  benefit  of  it, 
there  being  also  in  the  case  of  the  church  actual  union  with 
Him  glorified  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  members  of  His  body. 

The  Wesleyans  have  not,  that  I  know  of,  the  doctrine  of 
such  union  of  Christ  with  fallen  humanity,  but  they  take  up  in 
practice  its  effect,  with  the  assertion  of  some  good  in  fallen  man, 
and  that  what  is  wrought  in  salvation  is  the  setting  right  the 
first  Adam,  not  the  communication  of  a  totally  new  life.  The 
German  doctors  agree  with  them  in  this.  Without  it,  they  say, 
there  is  no  "  Anknupfungspunkt,"  no  point  to  which  grace  can 
attach  itself.  Now  God  does  act  on  man's  knowledge  of  good 
and  evil,  or  conscience,  but  a  new  life  is  given.  Christ,  the 
last  Adam  becoming  our  life  in  contrast  with  the  first,  needs  no 
"Anknupfungspunkt."  Irving  held  that  Christ,  while  sinless 
in  word  or  deed,  had  a  sinful  human  nature  ;  lust,  where  the 
will  did  not  consent,  not  being  sin,  as  is  held  by  Eoman 
Catholics,  Wesleyans,  and  a  very  great  many  others,  as  for 
example  our  modern  perfectionists  —  a  horrible  error.  The 
apostle  Paul  expressly  makes  sin  the  source  of  lust  in  Eom.  vii. 
It  is  an  error  which  makes  void  the  tenth  commandment,  as  he 
there  uses  it.  Christ,  according  to  Irving,  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
kept  sin  in  the  flesh  down,  and  so  kept  all  His  ways  holy,  and 
was  perfect,  and  obtained  thus  the  Holy  Ghost  for  us,  that  we 
may  do  the  same.  The  substitution  of  Christ  as  bearing  our 
sins,  and  therefore  dying  for  us,  he  expressly  denied  (and  the 
truth  of  the  atonement,  viewed  as  substitution,  is  involved  in  the 
question),  holding  that  He  died  because  of  what  He  was  as  a 
mortal  man,  not  because  of  our  sins.  I  need  not  go  farther  into 
his  doctrine. 

Dr.  Moody  Stuart,  late  moderator  of  the  General  Assembly 


of  the  Free  Cliurch  of  Scotland  says  :  "  We  are  renewed  in  the 
whole  man  after  the  image  of  God,"  a  most  false  presentation  of 
what  is  said  in  Scripture,  where  the  new  man  only  is  spoken  of 
in  Eph.  iv.  24,  as  a  new  creation,  in  Col.  iii.  10  as  renewed  in 
knowledge ;  but  in  both,  the  new  man,  in  contrast  with  the  old, 
he  continues,  "  in  mind,  in  will,  in  heart,  and  sin,  hath  not  domi- 
nion over  us,  because  we  are  under  grace,"  carefully  omitting 
"  because  we  are  not  under  law." 

Mr.  M'Leod,  Presbyterian  minister  in  Canada,  says :  "  They" 
(those  whom  he  calls  by  a  name  of  reproach)  "  falsely  teach  that 
in  regeneration  the  old  nature  remains  the  same,  the  new  is  intro- 
duced. They  sj)eak  of  it  as  if  it  were  the  introduction  of  a  new 
power  into  the  soul,  not  as  if  it  were  the  regeneration  of  the 
soul  itself,  as  if  the  Holy  Ghost  created  a  new  being,  and 
inserted  it  into  us  ;  while  the  Bible  teaches,  not  that  any  new^ 
power~"is  added  to  the  soul,  but  life  from  God  is  breathed  into 
the  soul,  as  it  were,  or  in  the  language  of  scripture,  the  soul  is 
born  again,  passes  out  of  its  former  state  of  unbelief  and  dark- 
ness, and  enters  into  a  new  state  of  faith  and  holiness.  All  the 
powers  of  the  soul  are  so  affected  as  to  be  renewed,  and  to  bring 
forth  fruit  unto  God  ; "  and,  confounding  Christ's  taking  true 
humanity  with  union  with  humanity  as  a  race,  objects  to  say- 
ing, "between  humanity  as  seen  in  our  Lord  and  humanity  as 
seen  in  us  there  could  be  no  union."  He  says  if  so  He  could  not 
stand  in  our  stead,  again  confounding  union  and  substitution  ; 
whereas  it  was  because  He  was  alone  in  sinless  humanity  that 
He  could  stand  in  our  stead. 

Dr.  Bonar  openly  ridicules  the  idea  of  two  natures,  or  any- 
thing equivalent  to  it,  in  the  Chiistian.  He  indeed  puts  Christ 
in  our  sinful  place,  though  sinless,  all  through  His  life. 

I  will  give  an  extract,  from  the  discourse  of  a  president  of 
a  Baptist  College,  of  a  sermon  preached  with  applause  at  a 
convention  and  conference  of  Baptists,  which  will  show  the 
doctrine  in  its  fulness  and  true  root  plainly  stated,  not  saying 


that  all  have  received  every  part  of  it,  but  as  here  presented  in 
a  full  formal  way.  It  is  borrowed,  sometimes  almost  verbally, 
from  a  German  theologian,  and  has  been  reproduced  in  the  same 
terms  by  one  whom  perhaps  I  might  call  the  leading  evangeli- 
cal minister  in  Switzerland,  at  any  rate  in  his  own  canton.  It 
is  current  in  a  modified  shape  everywhere,  even  wdiere  its  full 
bearing  is  not  understood.  It  has  been  carried  to  its  extreme 
results  by  Menken,  in  Germany,  of  whom  I  know  little,  and 
by  Irving  in  England,  of  whom  I  know  a  great  deal.  Its  effects, 
diluting  Christianity  and  subverting  the  truth,  prevail  where,  as 
I  have  already  said,  sometimes  its  true  root  is  unknown  and  its 
just  consequences  utterly  rejected  ;  but  their  Christianity  is 
mutilated  and  spoiled  by  it.  The  sermon  itself  is  a  dream  of 
Christ's  life,  founded  on  the  doctrine,  of  which  there  is  not  a  word 
in  Scripture,  reproducing  the  German  or  Swiss  I  have  alluded  to. 
"  Connected  in  every  fibre  of  His  nature  with  the  common 
nature  of  mankind,  He  saw  that  He  must  suffer,  the  Just  for  the 
unjust.  It  could  not  be  that  human  nature  should  fail  of  endur- 
ing the  settled  and  necessary  penalty  of  its  sin,^  and  He  not 
only  had  a  human  nature,  but  in  Him  human  nature  was 
organically  united,  as  it  never  had  been  before,  except  in  Adam  ; 
if  the  members  suffer,  should  not  also  the  Head  ?  "When  He  was 
but  twelve  years  of  age,  the  consciousness  of  this  divine  com- 
mission had  dawned  upon  Him.  Sitting  as  an  humble  ques- 
tioner before  the  doctors  of  the  Law,  the  conviction  had  become 
overmastering  ;  I  am  He,  the  teacher  and  prophet  promised 
long  ago.  ...  I  am  He,  the  sent  of  God,  the  Son  of  God.  And 
the  eighteen  years  that  followed  had  made  this  conviction  part 
and  parcel  of  His  very  being;  growing  with  His  growth,  and 
strengthening  with  His  strength,  it  had  taken  up  into  itself  all 
the  energies  of  His  soul,  conscious  or  unconscious,  until  His  life 
and  His  work  were  identical,  and  He  could  say,  '  Lo,  I  come  to 
do  Thy  will,  0  God.' "     I  will  not  pursue  the  wretched  picture, 

^  Here  we  see  how  atonement  is  involved  iu  it. 


created  by  an  imscriptural  imagination,  M'liich  is  given  of  Christ's 
conflicts,  through  realising  what  was  before  Him.  Suffice  it  to 
say  that  it  resulted  in  His  consecrating  Himself,  and  that 
as  devoted  to  death,  in  His  baptism  by  John.  But  as  to 
this  the  preacher  then  takes  up  a  third  point,  founded 
on  Christ's  baptism  by  John,  It  is  "a  proof  of  Jesus' 
connection  with  humanity,  with  its  sin,  and  its  desert  of 
death,  Jesus'  connection  with  human  sin,  and  His  consecration 
to  death  for  the  sins  of  the  world  ;  how  clearly  that  stands  out 
in  the  baptism !"  "  Jesus  personally,"  he  tells  us,  "  and  in  every 
act  and  thought  of  His  life,  was  sinless  ....  and  here  we 
come  to  the  greatest  mystery  of  God's  grace — the  person  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  His  assumption  of  the  common  nature  of  us  all.  If 
Jesus  had  no  connection  with  a  sinful  and  lost  humanity,  or  if 
that  connection  with  a  sinful  and  lost  humanity  had  been 
merely  a  factitious  and  forensic  one,  then  it  would  have  been 
the  greatest  breach  of  justice,  the  sheerest  insult  to  purity,  the 
most  extravagant  of  absurdities,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  should  have 
submitted  to  an  ordinance  which  was  in  some  sense  a  confession 
of  sin,  and  a  declaration  that  this  sin  deserved  nothing  less  than 
death.  My  friends,  we  can  never  explain  the  baptism  of  our 
Lord,  unless  we  remember  that  Jesus  was  made  sin  for  us,^ 
taking  our  nature  upon  Him,  with  all  its  exposures  and  liabili- 
ties, that  He  might  redeem  it,  and  unite  it  to  God  ;"  not  sinners, 
mind,  but  "  it."  "  But  this  one  mighty  fact,  the  taking  upon  Him 
of  our  nature,  does  explain  it.  As  one  with  humanity.  He  was 
about  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  Himself"  I  might  go 
on  with  much  more,  but  it  is  hardly  needed. 

In  all  he  says  of  John's  baptism  there  is  not  a  word  of  truth. 
Actual  sins,  not  sin  in  humanity  at  all,  were  confessed.    Did 

^  Note  here  the  monstrous  interpretation  •whicli  I  had  heretofore  supposed  it 
impossible  for  any  to  hold,  that  "  Him  who  knew  no  sin  "  means  Jesus  in  His 
divinity;  and  "made  sin"  the  incarnation,  "that  holy  thing,"  not  the  cross 
and  atonement  then. 


Jesus  confess  sucli?  In  Him  it  was  fulfilling  righteousness 
entering  in  by  the  door.  Jesus  went,  not  with  sinful  Jews,  but 
with  God's  remnant,  in  their  first  step  in  the  path  God's  word 
had  led  them  into,  as  the  door  of  the  kingdom.  So  far  was 
John's  baptism  from  being  to  death,  that  not  one  who  had  been 
baptized  of  him  would  ever  have  put  Christ  to  death.  If  all 
had  received  it,  they  would  have  received  a  living  Christ, 
Messiah ;  and  He  would  not,  as  far  as  that  went,  have  been  put 
to  death  at  all.  But  this  is  not  my  business  now.  Dr.  Strong 
uses  it  as  a  proof  of  His  doctrine.  My  business  is  with  the 
doctrine  itself,  which  is  here  pretty  fully  brought  out,  not  by  an 
adversary,  but  by  an  advocate  of  it  ;  and  that,  not  an  openly  here- 
tical teacher,  but  one  who  speaks  truth  when  he  comes  to  the 
application  of  it — a  fair  sample,  in  its  best  forms,  of  the  system. 
"  I  also,"  he  says,  "  must  die  to  sin,  by  having  Jesus'  death 
reproduced  in  me.  I  must  rise  to  a  new  life,  by  having  Jesus' 
resurrection  reproduced  in  me."  I  do  not  accept  the  form  of  this 
statement :  still  it  connects  itself  with  vital  truth.  But  then 
comes  the  ground.  "  The  putting  away  of  the  sin  and  guilt  of 
humanity,  which  was  the  essential  feature  of  Christ's  work, 
must  take  place  in  me,  and  this  I  must  do  by  having  my  life 
incorporated  with  His  life." 

This  really  denies  the  atonement.  What  is  the  guilt  of 
humanity  ?  But  on  its  own  ground  this  is  quite  unscriptural. 
Not  I,  says  Paul,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me  (Gal.  ii.  20)  ;  but  I  do 
not  now  enter  farther  on  this.  The  foundation  is  thus  laid ; 
"  It  was  humanity  that  bore  the  curse  in  His  death,  and  all  the 
true  life  of  humanity  rose  from  the  dead  in  His  resurrection." 
He  then  puts  our  death  and  resurrection  as  a  result  of 
corresponding  death  to  sin  and  resurrection  to  holiness.  This 
is  an  unscriptural  way  of  putting  it,  based  upon  the  error  I 
combat — the  denial  of  our  evil  nature,  always  the  same  but 
reckoned  dead  already  by  faith  and  kept  down  tlirough  the 
Spirit  by  a  totally  new  life.     But  I  cannot  pursue  it  here. 


It  is  a  common  way  of  putting  it,  and  connected  with  reform- 
ing the  old  man,  the  root  of  all  being  now  exposed  in  this 
doctrine,  and  cropping  out  all  over  the  world  ;  largely  taught  in 
the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  in  various  sliades  and  degrees, 
sometimes  not  knowing  what  it  means,  sometimes  in  its  mere 
practical  results  ;  but  likely  to  be  widely  spread  by  last  year's 
Cunningham  Lectures  on  the  -/.hucii,  or  self-emptying  of  Christ, 
which  are  a  developed  index  or  "  catalogue  raisonnee  "  of  German 
speculations  and  heresy ;  where  their  effect  too  is  already  seen 
in  the  way  the  blessed  Lord  is  spoken  of,  even  by  the  author. 

How  different,  how  contrasted  with  all  tliis,  is  the  calm  and 
beautiful  simplicity  of  the  Scriptural  account  of  Christ's  life. 
Let  us  see  how  Scripture  states  the  incarnation.  After  stating 
(John  i.)  what  Christ  ivas  (Qd;  r\v  6  Xoyog),  John  tells  us  (verse 
14)  what  He  hecamc;  the  word  was  made  flesh  (ca^^  \yivi7o),  and 
dwelt  amongst  us.  So  in  Heb.  ii.  14 :  "As  the  children  were  par- 
takers (xgxo/vwi/)jx£i')  of  flesh  and  blood,  He  also  Himself  in  like 
manner  took  part  (jj:,iri(s-xiv)  of  the  same,  that  througli  death  He 
might  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death."  He  became  a 
man,  was  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels,  that  He  might  die 
(Heb.  ii.  9).  But  His  being  born  in  flesh  was  by  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  so  as  to  be  holy  as  so  born  (Luke  i.  35).  "  The  Holy 
Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall 
overshadow  thee  :  therefore  that  holy  thing  (rh  aym)  which  shall 
be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God."  He  was  as  to  the 
flesh  born  of  God,  holy.  Son  of  God  ;  what  was  born  of  Mary  was 
a  holy  thing.  He  was,  by  divine  power  and  the  operation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  on  that  blessed  and  obedient  handmaid  of  the  Lord, 
born  a  holy  thing,  as  man.  This  was  not  sinful  flesh.  He  was 
(Gal.  iv.  4,  5)  ysvo'Mivog  sx.  yvvaixog,  ysvo[jjivog  vrrl  vo/mov,  that  He  might 
redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the 
adoption  of  sons.  But  this,  in  us,  is  thus  the  fruit  of  redemp- 
tion. To  as  many  as  believed  (John  i.  12)  on  Him  He  gave 
authority  to  take  this  place,  to  none  others.   But  to  proceed.   "We 


have  here  no  union  with  sinful  humanity  ;  but,  what  was  wholly 
unique,  a  sinless  man,  born  holy  in  a  miraculous  w^ay.  The 
place  of  sons  for  others  belongs  only  to  those  who  received  Him, 

Does  Heb.  ii.  lead  to  any  pther  thought  ?  "  Behold  I,  and  the 
children  which  God  has  given  me  ;"  only  these  are  spoken  of. 
These  children  were  in  flesh  and  blood  ;  so  He  took  part  in  it. 
But  the  objects  of  His  doing  so  are  carefully  distinguished  from 
the  race.  I  am  not  questioning  that  Christ  died  for  all ;  I 
believe  it.  But  His  drawing  all  men  was  by  His  death,  not  by 
incarnation,  but  by  what  wrought  redemption  when  man  had 
despised  and  rejected  Him,  and  the  world  was  judged,  and  the 
whole  of  it  lay  in  wickedness  (1  John  v.  19).  He  had  to  draw 
those  (John  xii.  32)  not  united,  but  far  from  Him.  But  I  have 
said  the  objects  are  carefully  distinguished  from  union  with  the 
race.  They  are  (Heb.  ii.)  the  children  God  had  given  Him.  He 
took  up  (took  up  their  cause)  not  angels — what  an  occasion  to 
speak  of  His  connection  with  the  race ! — but  He  took  up  the  seed 
of  Abraham.  As  they  were  in  flesh  He  took  it,  but  not  a  \vord 
of  union  with  humanity.  But  more  than  this,  we  have  the 
positive  statement  of  who  those  are  who  had  part  in  this  one- 
ness. He  M'ho  sanctifieth,  and  they  who  are  sanctified,  are  all  of 
one  (f^  ^>">?)/  and  they  are  so  as  so  sanctified.  Death  He  tasted 
for  every  man ;  but  union  with  man  is  unknown  to  Scripture. 
They  speak  of  His  being  bone  of  our  bone,  flesh  of  our  flesh  ; 
Scripture  never.  If  the  words  in  the  New  Testament  (Eph.  v.  30) 
be  genuine,  we  are  of  His  flesh  and  of  His  bones  when  He  is  glori- 
fied. And  in  the  Old  Testament  Eve  was  such  of  Adam,  not  Adam 
of  Eve.    In  every  form  the  theory  is  as  false  as  it  is  mischievous. 

The  other  quotation  in  Heb.  ii.  confirms  the  same  truth  :  "  I 
will  declare  thy  name  unto  my  brethren,"  wdiich  was  accom- 
plished after  His  resurrection,  as  the  22d  Psalm  plainly  in- 
timates, and  is  so  beautifully  unfolded  in  its  accomplishment  in 
the  20th  of  John's   Gospel.       The  words  Avhich  follow  fully 

^  It  is  couliued  to  those  wlio  are  sanctified.     They  are  e^  ei'os. 


establish  tlie  point :  "  lu .  the  midst  of  the  church  will  I  sing 
praise  unto  Thee."  The  truth  is,  there  is  no  such  thought  in 
Scripture  as  Christ  being  united  to  men  or  humanity.  He  was 
a  true  man,  but  there  was  no  union  with  other  men  in  their  sins. 
ISTor  is  union  with  humanity  a  Scriptural  thought  at  all.  The 
only  connection  with  men,  which  can  in  any  way  be  alleged  or 
pretended,  is  in  1  Cor.  xi.  "  The  head  of  every  man  is  Christ," 
but  there  it  is  power,  not  union,  which  is  spoken  of,  relative 
position  of  dignity.  The  setting  union  previous  to  redemption 
work  falsifies  Christianity  and  the  state  of  men.  The  passage 
has  been  quoted,  that  we  were  "  crucified  witli  Him."  This  is 
indeed  faith's  apprehension,  and  God's  apprehension  of  us  as 
looked  at  as  in  Christ,  inasmuch  as  He  died  for  us.  But  it  only 
confirms  the  great  truth  I  seek  to  establish.  Who  are  the  "  we  " 
or  the  "I"  crucified  with  Christ?  The  believer,  and  the 
belicA^r  only !  Were  all  the  ungodly  sinners  who  die  in  their 
sins,  and  never  heard  of  Christ,  crucified  with  Christ  ? 

That  He  was  a  propitiation  for  the  whole  world  I  read  in  1  John 
ii.,  but  there  He  was  alone  for  others.  It  was  done  towards  God, 
and  the  blood  on  the  mercy  seat  opens  the  door  of  the  gospel  to  all 
sinners.  But  tliis  has  nothing  to  do  with  union  with  the  race. 
It  was  done  for,  not  with  them.  When  the  title  of  Son  of  man 
is  shown  to  belong  to  the  Lord,  how  does  He  take  it  up  ? 
Through  His  death  !  The  Father  took  care  that,  if  men  despised 
and  rejected  Him,  the  testimony  to  who  He  was  should  be  there. 
The  resurrection  of  Lazarus  demonstrated  Him  Son  of  God  ;  the 
riding  in  on  the  ass  bore  witness  to  the  glory  of  tlie  Son  of 
David  ;  then  the  Greeks  come  up,  and  the  Lord  says  (John  xii. 
23)  :  "  The  hour  is  come  that  the  Son  of  man  should  he  glorified." 
Here  the  race  is  in  question.  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  it  abideth 
alone  ;  but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit."  Son  of  God 
and  King  of  Israel  He  was,  according  to  Ps.  ii. ;  but  to  take  His 
place  as  Son  of  man,  according  to  Ps.  viii.,  in  the  glory  that  be- 


longed  to  Him  according  to  that  title,  He  must  die.  His  Spirit 
then  enters  anticipatively  into  that  scene,  and  He  warns  His 
followers  they  must  follow  Him  in  that  path,  but  bows  in 
perfect  submission  to  His  Father's  will,  seeking  only  His  glory  ; 
and  this,  as  it  ever  did,  opens  out  to  Him  the  vista  of  His  glory 
which  flowed  from  it ;  "  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will 
draw  all  men  unto  me."  For  in  truth  they  were  far  away.  So 
far  was  it  from  union,  that  it  was  as  wholly  rejected  from  the 
earth,  lifted  up  and  away  from  it,  that  He  would  draw  men. 
When  man  had  rejected  Him  utterly,  and  the  world  was  judged 
in  consequence  (John  xii.  31),  lifted  \ip  out  of  it.  He,  the  crucified 
Jesus,  through  death,  and  by  it,  became  the  attractive  point  to 
all  men  in  grace.  The  sin  of  man,  in  total  alienation  from  God 
and  the  love  of  God,  in  redeeming  power  for  such,  must  both  be 
made  manifest,  and  meet  in  the  death  of  the  Lamb  of  God,  be- 
fore there  could  be  any  bond  between  them.  Eedemption  is  the 
sole  basis  of  blessing.  A  living  Saviour  was,  as  in  the  world. 
Son  of  God,  Messiah,  entitled  to  be  King  of  Israel.  A  Son  of 
man  who  has  died  and  risen  again  can  alone  take  the  world, 
and  take  it  as  a  Eedeemer  and  Saviour.  He  who  descended 
into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth  is  the  same  that  is  ascended 
far  above  all  heavens,  that  He  might  fill  all  things  (Eph.  iv.  10) ; 
and  He,  and  in  that  character,  takes  the  place  and  power  in 
grace  and  glory  which  belongs  to  Him.  So  when  His  hour 
was  really  come  (see  verse  51  in  Luke  ix.),  and  the  disciples 
own  Him  as  the  Chrjst  of  God,  "  He  straitly  charged  them  to 
tell  no  man  that  thing,  saying.  The  Son  of  man  must  suffer 
many  things,  and  be  rejected  of  the  elders  and  chief  priests  and 
scribes,  and  be  slain,  and  be  raised  the  third  day"  (Luke  ix.  20- 
22)  ;  and  then  shows  them  His  glory. 

No  doubt  as  Son  He  quickens  whom  He  will,  and  has,  from 
Adam  on  ;  but  He  is  not  for  us  the  life  and  the  resurrection,  but 
the  resurrection  and  the  life  (John  xi.)  Hence  in  John  vi., 
where  He  is  the  bread  of  life.  He  so  insists  on  resurrection  at 


the  last  day.  It  was  on  totally  new  ground,  founded  on  His 
death,  man  could  have  blessing  (verses  39,  40,  44,  53).  He  gives 
His  flesh  for  the  life  of  the  world ;  and  unless  men  eat  the  flesh 
and  drink  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  man,  they  have  no  life  in 
them.  Whoso  eats  that  has  eternal  life.  Union  with  men,  and 
sinful  men,  without  giving  life  or  redemption,  is  a  Socinian 
fable  ;  unwittingly  often  I  freely  admit ;  but  it  is  so.  "  Except 
a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the  ground,  and  die,  it  cibiddh  alone!' 
He  took  flesh  and  blood,  but  stood  alone,  quickening  indeed,  as 
Son  of  God,  whom  He  would,  but  as  man  in  the  flesh,  alone  in 
the  place  He  stood  in,  until  by  death  He  could  righteously 
bring  in  others,  and  redemption  (without  which — save  of  course 
Himself — none  could  have  to  say  to  God)  was  accomplished.  A 
Son  of  man,  alive  in  the  days  of  His  flesh,  in  union  with  men, 
without  giving  life,  and  without  justification  or  redemption,  is 
unknown  to  Scripture  ;  but  a  union  with  sinful  man,  giving  life 
and  redemption,  or  justification,  before  His  death,  is  alike  un- 
known to  it,  "  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all 
men  unto  me."  A  union  of  Christ  with  sinful  man  is  wholly 
unknown  to  Scrijoture. 

What  then  was  God  doing  with  men  before  ?  Quickening 
souls  assuredly  from  Adam  on ;  but  in  His  dispensations  with 
men  testing  their  state  for  their  own  instruction  ;  in  the  former 
world  setting  them  in  innocence  in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  where 
they  fell,  and  then  on  to  the  flood  without  any  special  institu- 
tion, though  not  without  testimony.  That  world  became  so  bad, 
that  it  was  destroyed  by  the  flood.  Then  came  government  in 
Noah  in  the  new  world  ;  promise  to  Abraham  called  out  from 
the  midst  of  universal  idolatry  ;  the  law,  testing  men  and  bring- 
ing in  transgression  ;  the  prophets,  to  recall  to  the  law  and 
testify  of  Christ.  Then  God  said,  I  have  yet  one  Son  :  it  may 
be  the}'  will  reverence  INIy  Son.  And  when  they  saw  Him  they 
said.  Come  let  us  kill  Him,  and  the  inheritance  shall  be  ours. 
Not  only  was  man  lawless  without  law,  and  a  transgressor  under 



law,  but  wlieu  grace  came  in  the  person  of  the  blessed  Son  of 
God,  they  would  none  of  it.  The  presence  of  a  Divine  person 
drew  out  the  enmity  of  the  heart  of  man  against  God :  "  Now 
they  have  both  seen  and  hated  both  ]\Ie  and  My  Father."  So 
far  from  there  being  a  link  with  humanity,  or  man  as  a  race, 
it  was  the  final  test  of  their  state :  God  come  in  grace,  as  a 
man  in  their  midst.  The  result  was  :  Now  is  the  judgment  of 
this  world. 

Hence,  in  speaking  of  Christ's  death  (Heb.  ix.  26),  it  is  said, 
"Now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world  (the  consummation  of  ages) 
He  hath  appeared."  Morally  it  was  the  end  of  man's  history ;  not 
the  communication  of  life,  hypothetically  even,  to  a  race,  nor  the 
taking  it  up  into  union  organically ;  but  the  deliberate  and  entire 
rejection  by  that  race  of  Him  in  whom  was  life.  And  so  it  is 
stated  (John  i.  4,  5),  "  In  Him  was  life,  and  the  life  was  the  light 
of  man," — emphatically  such ;  "  but  the  light  shineth  in  darkness, 
and  the  darkness  comprehended  it  not."  "  He  was  in  the  world,  and 
the  world  was  made  by  Him,  and  the  world  knew  Him  not.  He 
came  to  His  own,  and  His  own  received  Him  not."  To  as  many 
as  received  Him,  He  gave  title  to  be  children  ;  but  they  were 
born  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of 
man,  but  of  God  (ver.  13).  It  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  first 
Adam  and  his  nature  ;  if  He  was  received,  it  was  in  being  born 
of  God.  Light  had  come  into  the  world  ;  and  men  loved  darkness 
rather  than  light,  because  their  deeds  were  evil  That  light  was 
life,  but  with  the  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist,  of  Christ's 
work,  of  the  Father,  of  the  Scriptures,  whence  they  thought  they 
had  eternal  life,  they  would  not  come  to  Him,  that  they  might 
have  life.  There  was  no  mixing  the  last  and  first  Adam,  no  re- 
newing the  latter  by  the  former,  but  the  utter  rejection  of  the 
former  by  the  latter,  and  the  judgment  of  a  world  convicted  of 
sin  by  His  rejection.  Union  in  incarnation  is  a  mystical  and 
mystifying  fable.     Man  must  be  born  again. 

This  leads  me  to  the  second  point — the  form  this  error  takes 


when  union  with  sinful  man  in  incarnation  is  not  so  distinctly 
held  as  by  the  Germans  and  their  scholars  among  Presbyterians 
and  Baptists — namely,  that  nothing  new  is  given  to  man  ;  that  • 
the  old  and  new  man  are  not  contrasted  in  tlie  renewed  man ; 
but  that  there  is  simply  a  renewal  of  man  as  he  is,  in  his  affec- 
tions, thoughts,  and  whole  soul.  Such  is  the  AVesleyan  doctrine. 
Such  is  the  basis  of  perfectionism  ;  such  is  the  current  doctrine 
amidst  crowds  of  Christians  and  their  teachers,  exalting  the 
first  man  to  the  losing  of  the  full  and  blessed  truth  of  grace 
in  the  Second.  Amidst  a  large  class,  such  as  the  "Wesleyans, 
it  has  taken  this  form  :  man,  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  was  in  a 
good  state  before  the  fall,  in  a  bad  state  after  it ;  then,  by  the 
operation  of  the  Spirit,  in  a  good  state  again.  And  thus,  they 
consistently  hold,  a  man  may  be  born  again  ten  times  a  week, 
and  also  be  perfect ;  bat  it  is  the  perfection  of  the  first  man, 
not  of  a  Christ  in  glory,  conformity  to  whom  is  alone  spoken 
of  as  our  goal  in  Scripture.  With  all  classes  who  have  these 
views,  varying  in  details,  lust  is  not  sin,  unless  the  will  consents 
— a  horrible,  unholy  doctrine ;  and  denying  that  sin  in  the 
flesh  is  condemned,  and  the  whole  truth  of  the  fallen  state  of 
man.  But  my  part  is  to  see  and  state  what  Scripture  says  as  to 
tliis,  not  now  to  go  into  details  as  to  the  false  doctrine  itself. 
Possibly  at  the  close,  if  there  be  any  profit  in  it,  I  may  state, 
from  the  respective  writings  of  those  who  hold  them,  the  views 
into  which  this  evil  root  of  doctrine  has  branched  out. 

Scripture  states  distinctly  that  divine  life  is  a  wholly  new 
thing  given  of  God,  always  in  absolute  contrast  with  the  flesh, 
for  which  death  is  the  only  remedy.  I  have  been  somewhat 
surprised  at  this  truth  being  contested.  Certainly  some  years 
ago  the  conflict  of  flesh  and  Spirit  was  generally  owned  amongst 
real  Christians,  if  we  must  not  except  the  Wesleyans.  But  our 
business  is  with  the  Word  of  God.  First,  I  quote  the  well-known 
passage  (John  iii.),  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again  "  {avuQiv),  again 
l\x  its  origin  and  source,  for  amdiv  means  from  the  veiy  beginning 


or  starting-point,  as  in  Luke  i.  3,  "  from  the  very  first."  And 
this  was  in  reply  to  Nicodemus,  who  thought  he  could  be  taught, 
and  led  right  by  teaching.  Further,  in  insisting  on  it  and  an- 
swering Nicodemus,  who  did  not  see  how  so  totally  a  new  life 
could  be  possible  and  puts  the  case  of  a  natural  new  birth,  the 
Lord  declares  that  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  fiesh,  is  of 
that  nature,  as  every  animal  even  is  of  the  nature  of  that  which 
is  born  ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit — has  its 
nature.  Now  the  mind  of  the  flesh  (Eom.  viii.)  (not  the  carnal 
mind,  as  a  condition  of  soul,  but  r6  (po6n,iJ.a  ttis  caozo;)  is  enmity 
against  God,  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neitJier  indeed  can 
he;  so  then  they  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God.  They 
that  are  after  the  flesh  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh  ;  but  ye  are 
not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
dwell  in  you.  Is  not  that  a  new  thing  altogether  ?  And  if  any 
man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  His,  So  that 
all  have  not  this  new  thing.  And  if  Christ  be  in  you,  the  body 
is  dead,  because  of  sin ;  and  the  Spirit  is  life,  because  of  right- 
eousness. Is  not  the  Spirit  being  life,  Christ  being  in  us,  a  new 
thing  ?  But  again  (1  John  v.  11,  12)  :  "  This  is  the  record  that 
God  hath  given  to  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  His  Son.  He 
that  hath  the  Son  hath  life,  and  he  that  liath  not  the  Son  of 
God  hath  not  life."  Is  not  having  the  Son  a  new  thing  to  the 
sinner  ?  Not  merely  changing  his  affections  and  thoughts,  but 
having  the  Son,  we  have  life  ;  not  having  Him,  we  have  not 
life.  Hence  Christ  says,  "  Because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also"  (John 
xiv.  19).  He  gives  His  sheep  eternal  life  (John  x.)  He  is  that 
eternal  life  (1  John  i.  2)  which  was  with  the  Father  and  was 
manifested  to  us.  The  last  Adam  is  a  life-giving  Spirit  (1  Cor. 
XV.)  "  When  Christ,  who  is  our  life,"  says  the  apostle  (Col.  iii.  4)  ; 
and  again  in  Gal.  ii.  20,  "Nevertheless  I  live;  yet  not  I,  but  Christ 
liveth  in  me."  It  is  life  which  is  given  us,  life  in  Christ  in  the 
power  of  the  Spirit ;  "  the  law  " — that  is,  its  nature  and  unifonn 
character — "  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus."    We  are  alive 


unto  God  in — not  Adam,  but — Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  (Rom. 
vi.  11).  It  is  a  well  of  water  (Jolm  iv.),  God's  gift  in  Christ, 
springing  up  unto  everlasting  life,  in  its  highest  state  of  eternal 
glory.  When  the  fuU  Christian  place  is  understood  and  en- 
joyed, there  is  a  life  of  which  God  is  the  source.  We  are  born 
of  God  through  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  dwells  in  us,  giving 
power  and  liberty  in  this  life  with  God,  and  from  sin,  through 
the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  But  into  this,  blessed 
as  the  subject  is,  I  cannot  enter  here. 

Being  by  the  word  (James  i.  18),  that  which  is  heavenly  and 
divine,  yet  suited  to,  and,  when  in  Christ,  belonging  to  man,  is 
communicated  for  the  sanctifying  of  the  affections  and  thoughts, 
a  nature  having  been  communicated,  when  born  of  God,  capable 
of  enjoying  what  is  thus  revealed.  "  Of  His  own  will  begat  He 
us,  by  the  word  of  truth,  that  we  might  be  a  kind  of  firstfruits 
of  His  creatures."  "  We  are  born  again  of  incorruptible  seed  by 
the  word  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth  for  ever"  (1  Pet. 
i.  23).  Hence  we  are  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus 
(Gal.  iii.  2G).  The  things  revealed  by  the  Spirit  (1  Cor.  ii.)  are 
communicated  in  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  taught.  And 
so  far  as  man  lives  rightly,  he  Hves  by  every  word  that  proceeds 
out  of  the  mouth  of  God  (Matt.  iv.  4).  This  quickening  and 
forming  of  the  Christian's  affections,  by  the  word  revealing 
things  above,  is  fully  acknowledged  and,  I  trust,  cherished  by 
my  readers,  as  by  myself.  But  the  examination  of  Scripture ' 
will  show  that  the  flesh,  or  old  man,  is  an  evil  thing,  gauged  and 
rejected  of  God  and  of  faith,  accounted  dead  by  reason  of  Christ's 
death,  but  never  renewed,  never  changed.  Its  history  in  Scrip- 
ture shows  it  to  be  hopelessly  bad ;  lawless  when  left  to  itself, 
transgressing  the  law  when  placed  under  it ;  when  Christ  came 
in  grace,  hating  and  rejecting  Him  ;  when  the  Spirit  dwells  in  a 
man,  lusting  against  it,  and,  if  he  be  taken  up  to  the  third  heaven, 
seeking,  if  it  had  been  permitted,  to  puff  him  up  about  it.  We 
are  not  simply  sinners,  but  sinners  dealt  with  in  long  patience 

7  o  UNION  IN  INC  A  RNA  TION. 

by  God — a  patience  that  lias  brouglit  out  tbe  full  evil  of  our 
heart ;  we  are  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath. 

First,  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  (John  iii.),  a 
positive  specific  nature,  which  has  its  own  lusts  and  delights, 
such  as  they  are.  Its  works  are  manifest — may  be  seen  (Gal. 
V.  19-21).  The  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity  against  God.  The 
renewed  mind  knows  that  in  me,  that  is  in  my  flesh,  dwells  no 
good  thing  (Eom.  vii.)  The  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  in  formal 
contrast  with  its  works  ;  not  onl}^  so,  but  it  lusts  against  the 
Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against  it,  and  these  are  contrary  the  one 
to  the  other  (Gal.  v.  17).  They  that  are  after  the  flesh  mind 
the  things  of  the  flesh  ;  but  if  we  live  after  the  flesh,  we  shall 
die.  If  through  the  Spirit  we  mortify  its  deeds — for  it  is  a  nature 
which  has  its  deeds — we  shall  live  (Eom.  viii.)  Is  there  any 
forgiveness,  any  amelioration,  any  remedy  applicable  to  it?  None ! 
All  sins,  with  one  exception,  can  be  forgiven;  but  there  is  no 
forgiveness  of  an  evil  nature.  God,  sending  His  own  Son  in  the 
likeness  of  sinful  flesh  and  for  sin,  has  condemned  sin  in  the 
flesh  (Eom.  viii.  3).  It  is  the  nature  and  standing  of  the  first 
Adam,  and,  when  we  are  in  this,  we  are  said  to  be  in  the  flesh. 
What  then  is  the  remedy  ?  Is  there  none  ?  One  only,  if  remedy 
it  is  to  be  called, — death.  It  was  condemned  in  Christ's  death, 
as  we  have  seen  in  Eom.  viii.  3  (not  that  He  had  any  of 
course,  but  as  made  sin  for  us)  ;  but  that,  if  it  was  its  condem- 
nation, was  also  death.  He  that  has  died  is  justified  from  sin. 
(Eom.  vi.)  I  am  crucified  with  Christ,  nevertheless  I  live  ;  but 
not  I,  but  Christ  livetli  in  me  (Gal.  ii.)  They  that  are  Christ's 
have  crucified  the  flesli,  with  its  affections  and  lusts  (Gal.  v. 
24).  Knowing  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  Him  (Eom. 
vi.  6).  If  ye  be  dead  with  Christ  (Eom.  vi.  8).  Ye  are  dead, 
and  your  life  hid  with  Christ  in  God  (Col.  iii.  3).  Hence  the 
very  place  of  faith  is  to  reckon  ourselves  dead  to  sin  (Eom.  vi. 
11),  and,  as  the  flesh  is  stUl  in  us  which  lusts  against  the  Spirit, 
to  bear  about  in  our  body  the  dying  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  that  the 


life  of  Jesus  may  be  manifested  iu  our  body  (2  Cor.  iv.  10). 
Christ  having  died,  it  is,  for  faith  and  the  life  of  Christ  in  us, 
as  if  we  had  died,  and  we  reckon  ourselves  dead,  crucified  with 
Him  ;  dead  to  sin,  dead  to  the  law,  crucified  to  the  world,  and 
the  world  to  us,  Christ  lives  in  us,  alive  to  God — not  in  Adam, 
for  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  Christ,  but — in  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord. 

Scripture  is  as  uniform  and  as  clear  as  it  possibly  can 
be.  There  is  the  flesli  whicli  lusts  against  the  Spirit,  things 
contrary  the  one  to  the  other  ;  but  we  are  entitled  and  bound  to 
reckon  ourselves  dead,  inasmuch  as  in  us,  that  is  in  the  flesh, 
there  is  no  good  thing.  But  Christ  being  in  us,  the  body  is 
dead  because  of  sin  (its  only  fruit,  if  we  are  alive  in  the  flesh), 
and  the  Spirit  life  because  of  righteousness.  Hence  we  say  we 
have  put  off  the  old  man,  which  is  corrupt  according  to  the 
deceitful  lusts,  and  put  on  the  new,  after  God  created  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness,  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the 
image  of  Him  that  created  us.  And  note,  it  is  not  merely  the 
deeds,  but  the  old  man  with  his  deeds  ;  the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Jesus  is  the  having  done  so  and  having  put  on  the  new  man. 

The  first  part  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Eomans  treats  of  guilt 
and  forgiveness,  through  Christ  having  died  for  our  sins  ;  the 
second,  our  having  died  with  Him,  so  that  by  Him  we  might 
live  to  God.  Scripture  is  clear  in  the  contrast  of  flesh  and 
Spirit,  the  old  man  and  the  new  ;.but  we  are  entitled  to  hold  the 
first  for  dead,  and  our  life  to  be  Christ  and  not  tlie  flesh.  Also 
before  God,  we  are  not  in  the  flesh  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  the 
Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  us  (Eom.  viii.  9). 

To  deny  that  a  new  life  is  communicated  to  us,  and  that  the 
old  man,  the  flesh,  is  always  contrary  to  the  Spirit,  is  to  deny 
the  plainest  testimonies  of  Scripture  ;  while  our  privilege  and 
duty,  if  indeed  the  Holy  Ghost  dwells  in  us,  is  to  know  that  we 
are  in  Christ,  not  in  the  flesh,  and  to  reckon  ourselves  dead,  the 
old  man  crucified  with  Christ,  seeing  His  death  is  available  to 


US  for  that  also.  The  perfect  result  will  be  our  being  like 
Christ  in  glory,  as  was  shown  to  the  disciples  in  the  transfigur- 
ation. Nor  is  there  any  other  perfection  for  the  Christian  than 
this  :  only  we  are  to  realise  it  here,  Christ  in  us  the  hope  of 
glory  ;  and  if  Christ  be  in  us,  as  our  life,  is  not  this  something 
wholly  new,  and  contrary  to  all  that  the  flesh  is  ?  We  are  in 
Him  for  acceptance,  He  in  us  for  life  and  walk.  If  my  reader 
would  see  this  life  fully  developed,  let  him  read  Col.  iii.  5-17. 
Let  him  note  that  in  ii.  20  our  death  with  Christ  is  laid  as  the 
basis  where  our  being  alive  in  the  world,  in  the  religious  aspect, 
is  not  allowed ;  and  in  iii.  1  our  being  risen  with  Christ.  We  are 
associated  in  life  with  Him  risen,  now  that  He  is  glorified,  our 
life  hid  with  Him  in  God.  No  thought  of  sustaining  the  old 
Adam-life,  nor  taking  it  up  into  Him,  or  infusing  His  into  ours 
by  a  kind  of  incorporating  power  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  we  are 
dead  and  gone  as  to  this,  and  Christ  is  our  life,  and  so  belong 
to  heaven,  where  He  is,  though  not  yet  there. 

This  only  remains  to  refer  to,  the  positive  testimony  that  our 
union  is  as  believers  with  Christ  in  glory.  AVe  have  seen  it 
already,  when  speaking  of  the  alleged  union  of  Christ  with  us 
in  incarnation  (Heb.  ii.),  that  only  they  that  were  sanctified  were 
of  one  with  Him.  But  there  remains  some  positive  evidence  to 
notice.  In  John  xiv.  the  promise  of  the  Comforter  is  given, 
expressly  upon  the  ground  of  Christ's  being  gone  on  high, — as 
in  John  vii.,  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  [given]  because  Jesus 
was  not  yet  glorified.-  When  He  was  come,  as  we  read  in  John 
xiv.,  "  In  that  day  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  in  my  Father,  and 
ye  in  me,  and  I  in  you."  Who  ?  Humanity  ?  No,  the  disciples 
only.  The  Comforter  was  not  for  the  world, — "  whom  the  world 
cannot  receive,  because  it  seeth  Him  not,  neither  knoweth  Him  ; 
but  ye  know  Him  ;  for  He  dwelleth  with  you,  and  shall  be  in 
you  "  (John  xiv.  17).  And  this  is  the  more  definite,  be- 
cause in  the  early  part  of  the  chapter  the  Lord  si)eaks  of  the 
Father  being  in  Him,  and  He  in  the  Father,  but  not  of  the 


disciples  being  in  Him,  or  He  in  them.     This  belongs  to  the 
present  time,  when  Jesus  is  glorified,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  come. 

The  same  great  truth  is  brought  out  in  Rom.  viii.  There  is 
no  condemnation  for  them  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  but  this  is 
through  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of 
life  in  Christ  Jesus,  consequent  on  the  death  of  Christ.  "  Ye 
are  not  in  the  flesh  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  the  Spirit  of  God 
dwell  in  you.  Xow  if  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
He  is  none  of  His  ;  and  if  Christ  be  in  you,"  etc.  Here  is  union, 
and  through  the  Spirit ;  Christ  being  glorified,  we  in  Him  and 
He  in  us.  So  in  1  Cor.  vi.  17,  "  He  that  is  joined  to  the  Lord 
is  one  spirit."  "  Xow  He  which  stablisheth  us  with  you  in 
Christ,  and  hath  anointed  us,  is  God,  who  hath  also  sealed  us 
and  given  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit  in  our  hearts  "  (2  Cor.  i.  21, 
22).  So  "  if  any  man  be  in  Christ,  it  is  a  new  creation ;  old 
things"  are  passed  away,  all  things  are  become  new ;  and  all 
things  are  of  God,  who  hath  reconciled  us  to  HimseK  by  Jesus 
Christ"  (2  Cor.  v.  17,  18). 

So  in  a  more  special  character  of  this  union,  the  being 
members  of  His  body,  it  is  to  Christ  as  raised  from  the  dead 
by  God's  power  and  set  at  His  right  hand,  and  we  by  the 
same  power  quickened  with  Him,  and  raised  together,  and 
made  to  sit  together  in  heavenly  places  in  Him.  Thus  God 
has  given  Him  to  be  head  over  all  things  to  the  church, 
which  is  His  body,  the  fulness  of  Him  who  filleth  all  in  alL 
So  indeed  in  Eph.  ii.  12-18.  So  in  the  fifth  chapter,  con- 
nected witli  the  comparison  with  the  husband  and  wife,  and 
Eve's  union  with  Adam.  So  it  is  largely  developed  in  1  Cor. 
xii.  as  a  system  established  here  on  earth,  that  it  is  by  one 
Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body,  to  which  Christ,  and 
those  united  to  Him  by  the  Spirit,  are  compared.  The  whole 
groundwork  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  truth  taught  in  it, 
is  that  Christ,  though  a  true  man,  was  alone  until  He  had 
accomplished  redemption ;  and  that  then,  when  He  was  glorified, 


we  are  in  Him,  united  to  Him,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  He  the 
head,  and  we  the  members.  John  gives  us  our  being  in  Him 
individually  ;  Paul  also  our  corporate  union  with  Him,  the 
Head,  as  living  members  of  His  body  (He,  the  Head,  being  glori- 
fied on  high). 

Christ's  union  with  sinful  humanity  is  an  anti-scriptural  fable. 

The  life  the  Christian  receives  is  a  wholly  new  one  ;  he  is 
born  again.  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  being  flesh,  that 
which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  being  spirit.  He  that  hath  the  Son 
hath  life  ;  he  that  hath  not  the  Son  of  God  hath  not  life.  God 
sent  His  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world,  that  we  might  live 
through  Him.  There  is  no  renewing  or  ameliorating  of  the 
flesh ;  it  is  enmity  against  God  and  cannot  be  subject  to  His  law. 

Our  union  is  with  Christ  glorified,  in  a  new  life  in  Him, 
through  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  whom  our  bodies 
are  the  temple,  and  against  whom  the  flesh  always  lusts. 

Let  me  add  that  God,  in  His  history"  of  man,  has  shown  what 
flesh  is,  and  even  the  creature  left  to  himself.  The  first  thing 
man  has  always  done  is  t.o  spoil  what  God  has  set  up  good. 
Man  himself — the  first  thing  we  read  of  him  is  eating  the  for- 
bidden fruit.  The  first  Noah  did,  after  offering  thanksgiving 
for  his  deliverance,  was  to  get  drunk.  Israel  made  the  golden 
calf,  before  Moses  came  down  from  the  mountain.  Nadab  and 
Abihu  offered  strange  fire  the  first  day  after  being  consecrated, 
and  Aaron  never  went  into  the  holy  of  holies  in  his  garments  of 
glory  and  beauty.  '  The  son  of  David,  Solomon,  loved  many 
strange  women,  and  the  kingdom  M-as  divided.  The  Gentile  head 
of  gold  persecuted  the  godly,  and  became  a  beast,  characterising 
^[he  empires  that  followed  him  for  the  seven  times.     What  shall 

^   sav  of  the  church  ?     How  soon  did  all  seek  their  own,  not 
we      *' 

|i^    i-hings  of  Jesus  Clirist,  and  forsake  the  devoted  and  faithful 

Aq,  !  John  could  say,  "There  are  many  antichrists,  whereby  we 

•u         4  hat  it  is  the  last  time."    But  God  has  worked  on  in  grace, 

•/'  of  this,  to  show  what  He  is,  His  longsuffering  and 


goodness  and  patience.  So  all  those  things — man,  the  law,  the 
priesthood,  royalty  in  the  Son  of  David,  He  that  rises  to  reign 
over  the  Gentiles,  His  being  glorified  in  His  saints — all  is  made 
good  in  its  place  in  the  Second  Man,  the  last  Adam.  ]\Iay  His 
name  be  eternally  praised !  As  is  the  earthy,  svich  are  they  also 
that  are  earthy.  As  is  the  heavenly,  sucli  are  they  also  that 
are  heavenly.  And  as  we  have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthy, 
so  also  we  shall  bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly.  And  in  the 
ages  to  come  God  will  show  the  exceeding  riches  of  His  grace 
in  His  kindness  towards  us  in  Christ  Jesus.  I  speak  of  man's 
evil,  not  surely  to  delight  in  it,  but  that  we  may  so  know  it, 
and  that  in  conscience,  that  we  may  take,  through  grace,  Christ 
instead  of  ourselves,  and  be  occupied  with  Him. 

I  cannot  but  recall  to  the  reader  what  this  system  involves 
— that  "  Christ,  who  knew  no  sin,  was  made  sin  for  us,"  means 
that  Christ,  having  been  sinless  in  His  eternal  divinity,  was 
made  sin  in  being  made  man.  By  whom  ?  Not  when  He 
offered  Himself  without  spot  to  God,  but  He  was  made  a  bad 
sinful  being  by  God,  when  coming  into  existence  in  this  world ! 


My  object  is  iu  no  way  to  assail  Dr.  Moody  Stuart,  of  whose 
personal  worth  and  piety  (though  myself  unacquainted  with 
him)  I  have  no  doubt,  but  to  take  up  the  true  grounds  of  unity 
and  union,  points  not  only  of  great  importance  but  occupying 
the  hearts  and  minds  of  Christians  everywhere. 

The  desire  of  unity  flows,  I  cannot  doubt,  from  the  Spirit  of 
God.  True  unity  and  true  union  are  from  Him,  and  according 
to  His  mind.  He  will  bring  all  things  that  are  blessed  around 
Himself  as  a  moral  centre.  It  evidently  must  be  so,  for  He  is 
God  and  the  true  centre  of  all  blessing.  That  according  to  this 
there  is  a  special  effectuation  of  this  in  Christ,  in  the  fulness  of 
times,  is  clearly  also  revealed  to  us  in  Scripture.  Our  question 
is  :  What,  and  of  what,  and  how,  is  this  unity  or  union  ?  How 
far  is  it  unity,  and  how  far  union  ?     These  are  not  the  same. 

Scripture  must  be  our  guide  in  the  inquiry.  And  it  is  as 
precise  as  Dr.  Stuart  is  vague.  It  reveals  the  purpose  of  God 
according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  His  will,  for  the  admini- 
stration of  the  fuhiess  of  times  to  gather  together  in  one  (amxe- 
<paKai(Ji(sasi}ui)  all  things  in  Christ,  both  which  are  in  heaven  and 
which  are  in  earth.  It  reveals  an  eternal  state  when  Christ 
shall  have  given  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father,  that 
God  may  be  all  in  all — surely  ever  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost ;  but  God  as  such  all  in  all,  not  the  subsistence  of  the 
kingdom  held  by  Christ  as  man  ;  as  man  the  Son  will  then  be 
subject,  as  we  know  He  was  on  earth,  though  God  over  all 

^  A  review  of  Dr.  A.  Moody  Stuart's  sermon — "  Jesus  Christ  the  Bond  of  tJie 
Holy  Universe  " — preuched  at  tlie  opening  of  the  Free  Churcli  General  Assembly, 
Edinburgh,  on  Thursday,  ISth  :\Iay  1876. 


blessed  for  ever,  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  iu  Him  bodily. 
I  only  add  this  to  guard  from  error,  as  I  have  alluded  to  the 
passage  in  which  His  giving  up  of  the  kingdom  and  His 
subjection  are  spoken  of. 

There  is  another  unity  spoken  of,  that  is,  of  saints  on  earth, 
and  I  may  add  in  glory,  and  in  a  twofold  way.  First,  as  indi- 
vidual saints,  a  family  I  may  call  it,  as  it  specially  refers  to  the 
Father — Christ  being  the  firstborn  among  many  brethren.  Of 
this  John  speaks  ;  of  the  church  as  the  body  he  never  does. 
Its  second  aspect  is  this.  Those  in  whom  the  Spirit  of  God 
dwells  are  really  united  to  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  mem- 
bers of  His  body,  who,  as  man,  is  exalted  to  the  right  hand  of 
God,  in  the  glory  He  had  witli  the  Father  before  the  world  was. 
Both  these  will  be  perfected  in  heavenly  places.  The  sons  will 
be  in  glory  conformed  to  the  image  of  the  Son.  They  have  born 
the  image  of  the  earthly;  they  will  bear  the  image  of  the 
heavenly,  made  perfect  in  one.  He  will  be  the  head  of  the 
body,  the  church,  over  all  things. 

I  have  thought  it  better  to  state  briefly  the  Scripture  reve- 
lation as  to  unity.  My  statements  are  little  more  than  Scripture 
texts  strung  together,  so  as  to  show  what  its  doctrine  is  distinctly, 
before  any  comment  on  the  statements  of  Dr.  Stuart's  sermon. 
For  the  truth  itself  is  Avhat  enables  us  to  discern  any  departure 
from  it  and  ideas  which  are  purely  human  in  their  true  light. 
True  unity  is  too  precious  a  thing,  too  much  according  to  the 
heart  of  God,  and  must  be,  not  to  seek  to  guard  against  any 
erroneous  views  as  to  its  nature. 

The  passages  I  would  refer  to,  some  of  which  I  shall  be  led 
to  notice  more  fully,  are  John  xvii.  11,  20,  21,  22,  23,  three 
distinct  unities.  Eph.  i.  19-23,  compare  Col.  i.  15-18,  the 
same  twofold  headship.  1  Cor.  xv.  24-28  ;  Eph.  i.  9,  10  ;  Eom. 
viii.  29,  30. 

I  am  somewhat  surprised,  not  at  the  sermon's  producing  an 
impression,  but  that  its  vague  statements  were  not  estimated 


more  justly  by  those  who  sought  its  publication-  I  suppose 
want  of  Scriptural  habits  of  thought  is  what  accounts  for  it. 
Its  references  to  Scripture  are  everywhere  loose  and  inaccurate. 
The  text  itself  connects  part  of  verse  23  of  John  xvii.  with  verse 
21,  leaving  out  verse  22,  which  makes  a  total  change  in  the 
phase  of  unity  treated  of ;  and  the  effect  of  that  in  verse  24  is 
left  out,  or  the  discrepancy  would  be  manifest. 

There  are  three  unities  spoken  of  in  John  xvii.  First,  of  the 
immediate  disciples  of  Christ.  The  application  of  this  unity  to 
them  is  incontrovertible,  as  is  evident  from  the  language  of  verse 
12.  The  second  (20,  21)  is  of  those  that  believe  through  their 
word,  "  one  in  us,"  and  this  was  to  the  intent  that  the  world 
may  believe.  Tlie  third  is  unity  in  glory,  the  glory  given  to 
Christ  Himself  of  the  Father,  when  the  saints  are  made  perfect 
in  one,  that  the  world  may  know  He  was  sent  of  Him,  and, 
seeing  them  in  the  same  glory  as  Christ,  know  (most  wondrous 
word !)  that  we  have  been  loved  as  He  was  loved.  May  our  souls 
admire  such  grace,  and  know  what  it  is  to  dwell  in  it ! 

Dr.  Stuart  omits  the  statement  of  their  being  in  glory  (verse 
22),  and  connects  the  world's  believing  with  their  being  made 
perfect  in  one.  This  is  not  the  right  way  of  dealing  with  Scrip- 
ture, and  Scripture  so  solemn  and  precious  in  its  import  as 
this  is. 

He  tells  us  farther,  "  The  union  of  the  true  believer  to  Christ 
is  set  forth  in  our  text,  and  secured  by  the  double  bond  of  a 
mutual  indwelling."  Now  there  is  a  miitual  indwelling  bless- 
edly set  forth  in  John  xiv.  as  known  to  saints  when  the  Holy 
Ghost  should  be  given,  as  He  was  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  But 
no  union  with  Christ  is  spoken  of  in  the  text,  nor  indeed  does 
John  ever  speak  of  it.  It  is  another  thought — one  which  in 
his  Epistle  he  carries  on  to  dwelling  in  God  and  God  in  us, 
known  by  the  Spirit  He  has  given.  Perhaps  it  is  even  a  more 
precious  thought  than  union,  if  in  such  infinite  and  unspeakable 
privileges,  conferred  by  grace, — of  which,  His  grace,  God  will 


show  in  the  ages  to  come  the  unspeakable  riches  in  His  kindness 
towards  us  through  Jesus  Christ, —  we  can  speak  of  more  and 

On  this  mutual  indwelling  of  Christ  and  us  Dr.  Stuart  insists 
much.  There  is  not  a  word  of  it  in  John  xvii.  The  mutual 
indwelling  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  is  spoken  of  as  "  Thou 
Father  art  in  Me,  and  I  in  Thee,"  but  not  so  of  Christ  and  the 
believer.  Dr.  Stuart  has  been  misled  by  the  sound  of  the  words 
in  "I  in  them  and  Thou  in  INIe;"  but  there  is  no  mutual  in- 
dwelling here  at  all.  It  is  display  in  glory — Christ  in  the  saints 
and  the  Father  in  Christ.  The  whole  statement  is  a  mistake. 
We  have  only  to  read  the  passage  to  see  it ;  and  in  privileges  so 
wondrous,  and  thoughts  so  deep,  it  behoves  us  to  keep  close  to 
Scripture.  If  we  do  not,  we  shall  lose  much,  following  our  own 
thoughts.  I  cannot  doubt  that  so  excellent  a  person  as  Dr. 
Stuart  has  done  so  here  in  giving  course  to  his  own  thoughts 
instead  of  cleaving  close  to  the  word. 

I  do  not  dwell  much  on  the  "  oneness  of  evil."  There  is  a 
oneness  in  evil  in  one  sense.  It  is  in  man  self-will  departed 
from  God,  and  enmity  against  Him,  whatever  its  form,  lawless 
lust,  transgression  of  the  law,  and  hating  Christ,  and  therein 
His  Father.  Still  the  statements  of  Dr.  Stuart  seemed  to  me  to 
hang  little  together.  "  The  oneness  of  evil  is  among  the  most 
marked  of  its  characteristics,"  yet  "  sin  and  unity  are  everlasting 
opposites."  However,  as  my  object  is  not  to  criticise  but  to  treat 
the  subject  of  true  unity,  and  there  are  important  moral  observa- 
tions in  the  remarks  of  Dr.  Stuart  on  the  oneness  of  evil,  I  do 
not  comment  on  it  farther. 

I  should  wholly  object  to  his  use  of  John  xv.,  which  is  horta- 
tory ;  and  the  true  vine  applies  immediately  to  the  then  state 
of  the  disciples,  " Noio  ye  are  clean"  being  really  "Ye  are 
already  clean  "  (^'6>j).  Hence,  as  the  blessed  Lord  knew  them, 
verse  6  changes  from  "  ye  "  to  "  if  a  man,"  and  returns  to  "  ye" 
in  verse  7,  when  fruit-bearing,  not  withering  and  burning,  is  the 


subject.  The  true  vine  refers  to  the  vine  brought  out  of  Egypt. 
Israel  was  not  the  true  vine,  but  Christ ;  as  Christ,  not  Israel,  was 
in  result  the  servant  owned  of  God  (Isa.  xlix.)  It  is  not  church 
union.  That  is  union  of  members  to  Christ  the  Head  in  heaven, 
where  it  is  not  a  question  of  cutting  off,  nor  of  fruit-bearing,  nor 
of  purging.  I  quite  admit  that  there  is  the  general  analogy  now, 
and  the  applicability  of  the  exhortation.  But  I  cannot  go  farther 
into  the  interpretation  of  the  passage  here.  It  has  no  applica- 
tion to  Dr.  Stuart's  object,  for  it  is  at  all  events  an  exhortation. 
All  this  part  of  John  takes  up  the  responsibility  of  saints  ^vith 
the  Father.  It  is  "a  lower  sense"  in  which  the  disciples  are  said 
to  be  in  Christ ;  namely,  their  connection  with  Christ  tlien  upon 
earth  {nhri,  already),  not  when  He  was  the  exalted  Man  in  heaven, 
which  alone  is  church  union,  as  Eph.  i.  19-23  makes  evident. 

But  I  pass  on  from  this  section  (which  is  a  matter  of  inter- 
pretation on  which  I  should  be  glad  to  hear  any  godly  person, 
though  not  doubting  the  justice  of  what  I  have  said),  only  remark- 
ing that  when  Dr.  Stuart  says  "  a  lower  sense,"  it  cannot  have 
two  senses,  and  I  suppose  he  would  not  deny  that,  if  it  speaks  of 
"  temporary  believers,"  it  cannot  refer  to  union  wdtli  Christ  as 
members  of  His  body. 

In  the  following  section  I  admit  the  difference  between  the 
individuality  of  angels  and  the  one  race  of  which  Adam  was  the 
head.  And  that  Christ  was  the  head  of  a  spiritual  race,  taking 
Adam's  place  in  a  higher  way,  every  intelligent  Christian  taught 
in  the  word  will  admit,  and  will  moreover  feel  the  importance 
of  it.  Eom.  V.  and  1  Cor.  xv.  are  clear  on  the  point.  Dr.  Stuart 
has  given  us,  too,  some  interesting  observations  on  the  elements 
of  all  being  united  in  Christ's  person,  the  full  justness  of  which 
I  am  not  prepared  to  speak  of  without  weighing  them  more  than 
I  have,  but  which  are  quite  worthy  of  being  weighed,  and  which 
I  pass  from  only  to  pursue  my  main  sultject,  union  and  unity. 
Here  all  is  confusion,  and  sometimes  difficult  to  seize  from  the 
way  it  is  ex])rcssed.     Union  and  unity  as  here  used  have  no 


Scriptural  intelligible  meaning.  That  God  is  the  fountain  of  all 
angels'  good,  and  the  source  of  their  happiness,  and  the  centre  of 
their  harmony,  is  certain.  But  what  means  their  being  "  united 
to  Him"  ?  "Who  ever  heard,  in  Scripture  at  least,  of  angels  being 
united  to  God  ?  No  trace  of  such  a  thought  is  in  Scripture.  I 
am  sure  Dr.  Stuart  means  no  harm  in  it,  but  it  is  tliis  loose  think- 
ing, away  from  Scripture,  which  has  deprived  the  church  of  so 
much  precious  truth.  We,  that  is,  all  those  who  have  the  Holy 
Ghost,  are  united  to  Christ,  the  glorified  man,  as  members  of  His 
l)ody.  "  He  that  is  joined  to  the  Lord  is  one  spirit."  But  angels 
united  to  God  is  really  in  itself  a  blasphemy — though  I  am  quite 
sure  Dr.  Stuart  means  such  as  little  as  I  do.  But  the  reality  of 
union  with  Christ  is  lost  through  this  loose  way  of  speaking. 
When  Dr.  Stuart  says,  "  Llany  of  them  fall  away,"  I  thought  at 
first  it  uiiglit  be  a  misprint  for  "  fell  away,"  as  we  read  of  angels 
who  kept  not  their  first  estate,  and  are  reserved  in  chains  of 
darkness  to  the  judgment  of  the  great  day.  But  he  says  the  elect 
angels  abide,  in  the  present  tense  too,  as  is  the  whole  statement. 
The  rest  of  the  paragraph  is  really  one  mass  of  confusion.  Their 
everlasting  union  to  the  centre  of  all  good  appears  to  be  increased, 
confirmed,  and  secured. 

As  I  have  already  said,  there  is  no  union  to  God.  Angels, 
and  principalities,  and  powers,  are  made  subject  to  Christ,  and 
the  whole  state  of  things  will  be  reconciled  to  God  in  His  ful- 
ness, and  brought  into  order  under  Christ,  when  the  fulness  of 
time  has  come.  God  has  given  to  Him,  the  exalted  man,  to 
be  head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  which  is  His  body,  the 
fulness  of  Him  who  fills  all  in  all  (comp.  Eph.  iv.  9, 10) ;  but  in- 
creasing, conjoining,  securing  of  union  with  God,  is  an  idea 
utterly  foreign  to  Scripture,  and  excludes  what  is  in  Scripture 
by  what  is  substituted  for  it. 

I  will  just  remark  that  goodwill  to  men  is  not  the  form  of 
the  angels'  words  in  Luke,  but  good  pleasure  (vjSoxia)  in  men. 
He  does  not  take  hold  of  angels,  but  He  taketh  hold  of  the  seed 



of  Aloraliam  ;  and  it  is  beautiful  to  see  the  unjealous  delight  of 
these  holy  heings  in  the  plans  of  God's  glory,  though  in  others 
than  themselves,  for  "  His  delight  (Wisdom's)  was  in  the  sons 
of  men."  But  the  reciprocating  song  of  earth,  when  He  had 
finished  His  work,  is  all  confusion.  The  babes  and  sucklings 
spoken  of  in  Psalm  viii  are  celebrating  Messiah  according 
to  Psalm  cxviii.,  a  prophecy  of  which  several  verses  are  cited  as 
to  the  latter  days  by  the  Lord  and  the  apostles,  particularly  by 
Peter,  the  apostle  of  the  circumcision.  It  is  the  anticipation  of 
that  day,  "  the  day  which  the  Lord  hath  made,"  when  hosanna 
to  the  Son  of  David  will  resound,  not  from  the  mouths  of  babes 
and  sucklings,  and  the  crowd  that  were  divinely  compelled  to 
do  it,  lest  the  stones  should  have  to  cry  out,  but  from  a  j)eople 
willing  in  the  day  of  His  power,  when  His  heart  will  set  Him 
in  the  chariots  of  His  willing  people.  And  note  here,  in  this 
remarkable  anticipation  of  that  day,  the  expression  "  peace  in 
heaven."  It  is  not  till  Satan  and  his  angels  are  cast  out  thence 
that  the  full  accomplishment  of  this  will  take  place.  Then  in 
due  time  they  shall  say,  Blessed  is  He  that  cometh  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord.  Till  then  their  house  will  be  left  unto  them  deso- 
late, and  tliey  will  not  see  Him.  He  meanwhile  sits,  not  on 
His  own  throne,  but  on  His  Father's,  as  He  expressly  states  in 
Eev.  iii.,  according  to  the  word  :  Sit  on  My  right  hand  until  I 
make  Thine  enemies  Thy  footstool.  Then  Jehovah  will  send  the 
rod  of  His  power  out  of  Zion,  and  He  will  rule  in  the  midst  of 
His  enemies.^ 

The  Lord  had  not  finished  His  work  when  He  entered  into 
Jerusalem.  His  course  down  here  may  be  said,  in  a  certain 
sense,  to  have  closed.  His  work  He  was  just  about  to  accom- 
plish.    But  it  is  here  summed  up  by  Dr.  Stuart,  as  God  in 

1  The  careful  reader  of  Scripture  will  see  tliat,  when  rejected,  His  God  and 
Father  took  care  that  testimony  should  be  rendered  to  Him  as  Son  of  God  in  tlie 
resurrection  of  Lazarus,  Sou  of  David  in  riding  into  tlie  citj',  Sou  of  man  wlien 
the  Greeks  came  up.     The  last  involved  death. — John  xi.  xii. 


Christ  reconciling  all  things  to  Himself,  whether  they  be  things 
in  earth  or  things  in  heaven.  There  is  no  such  passage,  no  such 
statement  in  Scripture.  Two  passages  are  confounded,  and 
both  misapplied.  God,  we  read  in  the  end  of  2  Cor.  v.,  was  in 
Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  Himself,  not  imputing  to  them 
their  trespasses.  But  the  world  would  not  have  Him  :  and, 
having  accomplished  the  work  of  atoning  redemption  and  gone 
into  glory,  having  been  made  sin  for  us.  He  sends  out  His 
ambassadors  to  beseech  men  to  be  reconciled  to  God.  Blessed 
gospel  testimony  and  grace  !  There  is  another  passage  on  quite 
a  different  subject,  in  Col.  i.  All  the  fulness  [rrav  rb  --XrisM^wa, 
a  word  of  all  moment  against  the  Gnostic  heresies — compare  ii. 
9)  was  pleased  to  dwell  in  Him,  and  .  .  .  by  Him  to 
reconcile  all  things  to  itself,  by  Him  I  say,  whether  they  be 
things^n  heaven  or  things  in  earth,^  and  you  hath  He  recon- 
ciled, in  the  body  of  His  flesh  through  death.  Here  the 
reconciliation  of  believers  through  the  work  of  the  cross  is 
clearly  distinguished  from  the  reconciling  all  things.  They 
were  reconciled.  "  You  hath  He,"  etc.  But  God  was  by  Him  to 
reconcile  all  things.  This  was  to  be  done.  The  duality  is 
maintained  all  through  the  passage.  First-born  of  every 
creature,  first-born  from  the  dead,  head  of  the  church,  His  body. 
This  is  summed  up  at  the  end  of  Eph,  i.  These  two  passages  in 
2  Cor.  V.  and  Col.  i.  are  mingled  together  (by  Dr.  S.)  and  con- 
nected with  His  going  on  the  ass  to  Jerusalem,  and  utter 
confusion  is  the  natural  result. 

There  is  an  utter  confusion  too  in  all  this  part,  one  which 
lias  brought  in  abominable  error  as  to  Christ,  in  the  foremost  of 
the  evangelical  German  divines,  and  in  the  Dutch  reformed  in 
America  through  them,  namely,  as  if  man  was  being  restored. 
Adam  was  the  image  of  Him  that  Avas  to  come.     But  all  is 

^  Note  here,  when  it  is  declared  all  knees  are  to  bow,  a  third  class  is  added,  ra 
Karax^^via,  infernal  things.  They  are  gone  out  of  heaven  and  earth,  and  are  not 
put  in  the  classes  reconciled. 


utterly  fallen  and  ruined  in  the  first  Adam.  Xow,  says  the 
Lord,  is  the  judgment  of  this  world  ;  and  again,  Now  once  in 
the  end  of  the  world  (awTslsIa  ruv  almcov)  hath  He  appeared  to 
put  away  sin.  The  head  of  the  blessing  is  man  in  a  new  state, 
risen  and  exalted.  ]\Ian,  as  in  the  flesh,  has  seen  and  hated  both 
Him  and  His  Father. 

As  a  general  truth  Dr.  Stuart  would  not,  and  does  not,  deny 
that  we  all  fell  in  Adam.  But  there  is  more  than  this.  Mail 
has  been  fully  tested  as  to  whether  as  such  he  could  be  restored. 
"Without  law  he  was  so  bad  that  the  flood  was  needed  even  in  this 
world ;  under  the  law  his  sin  became  exceeding  sinful ;  and  when 
God  after  tliis  came  into  the  world  in  grace,  making  Himself  of 
no  reputation,  to  bring  love  to  sinners,  and  yet  showing  divine 
presence  and  power  in  removing  every  effect  of  sin  here  below, 
they  spat  in  His  face  and  crucified  Him.  Now,  says  the  Lord, 
is  the  judgment  of  this  world.  And  we  shall  find  that,  what- 
ever God  set  up  good,  the  Jirst  thing  man  did  was  to  spoil  all, 
though  God  went  on  in  grace.  Man  himself  fell  the  first  thing. 
Noah  got  drunk  the  first  thing.  The  golden  calf  was  made 
before  ]\Ioses  was  down  from  the  mount.  Strange  fire  was 
offered  the  first  day,  and  Aaron  never  went  into  the  holiest  in 
his  robes  of  glory  and  beauty.  Solomon,  son  of  David,  departed 
from  God  ;  and  Nebuchadnezzar  put  the  faithful  ones  in  the 
fire  and  became  a  beast.  Finally  in  the  rejection  of  Christ, 
after  all  remedial  means  which  were  at  God's  disposal,' it  was 
demonstrated  that  the  mind  of  the  flesh  was  enmity  against 
God.  They  had  seen  and  hated  both  Him  and  His  Father. 
Man  must  be  born  again  (ui/c>jOn>).  It  is  a  new  creation  when 
men  were  dead  in  sins,  connected  with  the  Second  IVIan  rejected 
by  man,  and  now  raised  from  the  dead  and  exalted  to  the  right 
hand  of  God. 

That  the  blessed  Lord  was  a  true  real  man  in  flesh  and  blood 
is  as  essential  to  Christianity  as  that  He  was  God.  In  this  I  trust 
I  have  no  controversy  with  Dr.  Stuart.     The  "Word  was  made 


{ly'iHTt})  flesli  and  dwelt  among  us  ;  and,  as  the  children  were 
partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  He  also  Himself  likewise  took  part 
of  the  same,  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels  for  the  suffering 
of  death.  This  lies  at  the  root,  and  is  of  the  esseuce  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  a  blessed  truth  it  is,  unspeakably  so  to  us  human 
beings,  that  if  a  sinless  man  He  was  a  true  man,  body  and  soul, 
and,  one  may  add,  spirit.  This  was  called  in  question  by  heresy 
as  soon  as  His  deity  Avas. 

I  tliink  Scripture  is  more  guarded  than  Dr.  Stuart  here,  but 
he  is  more  guarded  than  some.  Scripture  never  says,  as  some 
have,  bone  of  our  bone,  and  flesh  of  our  flesh  ;  and  Scripture  is 
wiser  than  we  are.  This  has  been  used  to  make  union  in 
incarnation,  which  is  quite  unscriptural.  It  issued  in  Irvingism ; 
but  the  seed  was  under  the  clod  in  Scotch  Presbyterianism,  and 
is  still  cherished  as  a  garden  plant  in  the  semi-Irvingites  of  that 
body.  Dr.  Stuart  only  goes  so  far  as  to  sa}^  flesh  out  of  our 
flesh,  bone  out  of  our  bone.  Still  it  leads  him  half-way  into  the 

A  new  creation  must  in  its  nature  leave  out  fallen  man,  as 
fallen,  for  he  is  not  a  new  creation  but  the  old  one,  tliat  which  is 
put  off — no  doubt  the  same  person — but  he  is  of,  and  lives  in  a 
new  creation,  if  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  what  would  the  new 
creation  have  been,  as  to  moral  beings,  if  fallen  man  was  left  out 
as  the  object  of  it  ?  The  elect  angels  have  not  left  their  first 
estate.  Dr.  Stuart  is  as  usual  very  vague.  "  The  operation  was 
to  be  in  man,  already  existing,  and  defiled  by  sin,  which  sepa- 
rates while  it  defiles.  It  was  from  our  corrupted  stock  He  drew 
His  holy  manhood,  because  not  merely  man  like  us,  but  of  us." 

What  has  this  to  do  with  the  new  creation  ?  AVas  union  in 
incarnation  ?  Dr.  Stuart  does  not  say  so,  but  what  do  his  words 
mean  ?  "  Was  Christ  a  new  creation,"  he  says,  "  casting  Him- 
self into  the  head  of  the  existing  family,  and  from  it  deriving 
His  own  everlasting  manhood?"  He  does  not  say  it  was  union; 
that  he  puts  differently.     But  he  states  it  while  admitting  He 


was  holy,  harmless,  uudefiled,  so  as  to  lead  the  mind  to  a  con- 
nection of  Christ  with  man  in  incarnation,  which,  while  from 
its  uncertainty  and  vagueness  it  almost  eludes  the  grasp,  is 
perilous  from  the  way  it  leads  the  soul  to  the  verge  of  union  in 

Christ  assuredly  was,  as  born  into  this  world,  and  ever,  hol3% 
harmless,  uudefiled  ;  but  it  shows  the  habitual  confusion  of 
thought  as  to  Christ,  if  we  remember  that  this  is  spoken  of 
Christ  as  high  priest  (Heb.  vii.)  and  carefully  presented  as 
separate  from  sinners,  in  contrast  too  with  high  priests  "  taken 
from  among  men."  "When  Scripture  speaks  of  His  taking  flesh 
(a  vital  truth  for  us,  as  I  have  already  said),  not  only  is  it  said 
"  a  body  hast  Thou  prepared  Me  ; "  but,  in  stating  His  doing  so, 
the  language  is  careful  not  to  speak  as  Dr.  Stuart  speaks. 
The  children  y.i-A.(iivm-n%iv  of  flesh  and  blood ;  of  Him,  lur'iayjv 
'Truga'TTATiaiug  is  used. 

Now  I  repeat  that  there  may  be  no  mistake,  —  I  hold  His 
being  truly  a  man  in  flesh  and  blood,  and  with  a  human  soul  as 
well  as  a  body,  to  be  a  vital  truth.  It  is  the  subject  of  the 
adoring  joy  of  my  soul,  nor  do  I  think  it  is  half  enough  taught 
or  believed,  that  He  was  a  true  man,  while  a  sinless  and  holy 
man.  What  is  false  is  connecting  this  with  the  idea  of  union 
with  us.  This  vagueness  as  to  union  with  man  is  so  much  the 
more  perilous,  as  Dr.  Stuart  insists  that  there  is  a  greater  differ- 
ence between  the  brutes  and  man,  than  between  man  and  .God. 
I  suppose  he  refers  here  to  tlie  low  and  degraded  form  of  infi- 
delity called  evolution.  In  his  horror  of  this  (perhaps,  for  my 
part  I  should  say  contempt)  I  should  heartily  join  Dr.  Stuart. 
But  as  to  our  present  point  he  leaves  out  the  present  condition 
of  man.  Man  was  created  for  God  ;  but  preferring  to  believe 
the  deceiver,  he  did  his  own  will.  He  has  been  driven  out  of 
Paradise,  where  he  had  to  say  to  God,  he  was  without  God 
(ukog)  in  the  world.  His  adaptation  to  God  was  eternal  misery 
as  having  lost  Him,  and  no^v  this  is  not  all  the  truth.     Man,  as 


far  as  liis  will  could  do  it,  has  turned  God  out  of  this  world 
when  come  into  it  in  grace.  The  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity 
against  God.  In  the  moral  sense  he  is  infinitely  farther  from 
God  than  he  is  from  the  brute.  If  left  to  himself  he  can  follow 
the  brute  and  worse,  and  as  regards  God  has  no  understanding^ 
He  was  in  the  world,  and  the  world  was  made  by  Him,  and  tlie 
world  knew  Him  not.  Man  must  be  born  anew  to  have  any- 
thing to  say  to  Him,  save  enmity,  sins,  and  judgment.  Con- 
science— the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil — acquired  by  the  fall 
he  has.  Nor  does  gracious  invitation  restore  him.  "  Wherefore, 
when  I  came,  was  there  no  man  ?  when  I  called,  was  there  none 
to  answer  ? "  "What  He  had  seen  and  heard,  that  He  testified, 
says  John,  and  no  man  receives  His  testimony.  The  real  ques- 
tion is  not.  Did  Christ  come  in  grace  to  such  ?  but  did  He  unite 
Himself  to  them  ?  or  are  renewed  souls  united  to  Him  when, 
having- accomplished  redemption.  He  is  exalted  to  glory  ?  Scrip- 
ture speaks  of  the  latter,  and  positively  denies  the  former. 

As  to  union  in  life,  as  I  have  said.  Dr.  Stuart  is  vague,  and 
uses  figurative  expressions,  which  may  mean  nothing  or  any- 
thing. But  he  is  distinct  in  identifying  Christ's  uniting  Him- 
self to'us,  and  taking  sinners  into  union  with  Himself.  This 
last  was  tlie  problem,  he  says,  and  solved  by  His  uniting  Him- 
self to  His  people  in  death.  Now  Christ's  uniting  Himself  to 
His  people  is  unknown  to  Scripture.  He  does  not  unite  Himself 
to  sinners,  nor  does  He  even  to  saints  :  they  are  united  to  Him 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  when  He  is  in  glory.  They  are  members  of 
His  body  (not  He  members  of  them),  members  of  it  when  the 
Head  is  glorified,  and  they  are  created  again.  The  end  of  Eph. 
L  and  early  part  of  Eph.  ii.  are  clear  as  to  this  point,  and  how  it 
takes  place,  and,  where  this  is  not  seen,  the  real  truth  of  unity 
is  wholly  lost.  How  can  the  Holy  One  be  united  to  a  sinner, 
if  the  union  be  real  and  spiritual  ?  "  He  that  is  joined  to  the 
Lord  is  one  spirit."  Is  that  true  of  a  mere  sinner?  And  Scrip- 
ture is  express  in  denying  it.     "  Except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall 


IK  TO    THE    GKOUND    AND    DIE,    IT    ABIDETH    ALONE."      HeuCG    in 

Ephesians,  where  union  is  spoken  of,  He  is  not  seen  till  raised 
from  the  dead  and  set  at  God's  right  hand  in  heavenly  places. 
And  then,  we  being  dead  in  sins,  He  hath  quickened  us  together 
with  Him  and  made  us  sit  in  heavenly  places  in  Him.  Then 
only  is  Scriptural  and  real  union  ;  not  in  Christ  born  into  tliis 
world,  united  to  sinners  in  their  sins ;  not  a  Christ  on  the  cross 
and,  when  He  was  most  especially  alone,  united  to  those  for 
whom  He  was  substituted  before  their  sins  were  cancelled  by 
His  precious  blood  ;  not  even  a  Christ  glorified,  united  to  sin- 
ners or  to  any  down  here.  Scripture  never  speaks  of  His  being 
united  to  us,  but  of  saints  being  united  to  Him  in  glory  in  a 
totally  new  life  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  that  they  become  risen 
and  heavenly  people. 

Eemark  too  here,  that  where  the  Lord  says  He  abode  alone 
till  after  He  had  died.  He  is  speaking  of  the  Son  of  man. 
Testimony  to  His  being  Son  of  God  was  given  in  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Lazarus,  to  His  being  Son  of  David  in  His  riding  into 
Jerusalem.  The  Greeks  come  up.  He  says,  "  the  hour  is  come 
that  the  Son  of  man  should  be  glorified."  But  to  take  this  title 
according  to  the  counsels  of  God  He  must  die.  Son  of  God 
according  to  Ps.  ii.  He  was  ;  King  of  Israel,  Messiah  according 
to  the  same  Psalm,  He  was  ;  and  surely,  as  to  His  personal  title 
to  it.  Son  of  man,  but  the  kings  of  the  earth  stood  up,  and  the 
princes  took  counsel  together.  In  a  word.  He  must  be  rej^^cted 
to  take  up  tlie  place  of  Son  of  man  according  to  Ps.  viii.  So  in 
John  i.  Nathaniel  owns  Him  according  to  Ps.  ii.  Son  of  God, 
King  of  Israel.  The  Lord's  answer  is,  that  he  should  see  more 
henceforth  (for  Israel  in  John  is  rejected  in  the  first  chapter,  to 
own  those  born  of  God  alone),  "  the  angels  of  God  ascending  and 
descending  on  the  Son  of  man." 

When  Christ's  birth,  or  His  so  wonderfull}'  associating  Him- 
self with  the  called  and  repentant  remnant  of  Israel  in  John's 
baptism,  is  spoken  of,  His  title  is  Son  of  God,  not  Son  of  man. 


"  That  holy  thing  that  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the 
■Son  of  God,"  and  the  Father's  voice,  when  heaven  was  opened, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  on  Him  alone,  "  This  is  my  be-, 
loved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  Son  of  Man  He 
delighted  to  call  Himself,  but  (forbidding,  when  His  testimony 
was  rejected,  Himself  to  be  announced  any  more  as  the  Christ : 
Matt.  xvi. ;  Mark  ix. ;  Luke  ix.)  the  Son  of  man  must  suffer 
and  be  rejected,  put  to  death,  and  rise  again  the  third  day,  that 
as  the  risen  man  in  a  wholly  new  position  He  might  take  the 
place  revealed  of  the  Son  of  man  in  Daniel  vii.  and  Ps.  viii. 

This  doctrine  of  union  of  the  Son  of  God  with  sinners  in  their 
sins  falsifies  the  whole  nature  of  Christianity,  a  new  creation, 
and  man  in  a  new  life,  united  to  a  glorified  man  in  heaven,  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  dwelling  in  him,  consequent  on  the  accomplish- 
ment of  redemption.  Dr.  Stuart  says,  "  Christ  united  Himself 
to  His^  people  by  taking  them  to  Himself  in  His  death  on 
Calvary."  If  this  be  so,  all  the  vague  language  of  Dr.  Stuart, 
and  the  plain  language  of  bolder  men,  as  to  union  in  incarnation, 
and  also  the  utterly  unscriptural  doctrine  of  His  bearing  our 
sins  all  His  life,  is  M'holly  set  aside.  But  what  does  union  here 
mean  ?  "  That  He  might  receive  us  into  oneness  He  stood  in 
our  place."  This  I  believe,  but  it  contradicts  what  is  said  a  few 
lines  higher  up. 

That  all  His  people  were  seen  as  if  they  were  there,  because 
He  represented  them,  and  as  He  -bore  their  sins,  so  also  they 
died  with  Him  is,  blessed  be  God,  true.  But  that  has  nothing 
to  do  with  union.  It  is  another  great  and  precious  truth, 
substitution.  He  stood  in  our  place,  as  Dr.  Stuart  most  justly 
says ;  but  that  is  not  union  but  the  opposite  of  it.  He  accepted 
our  penalty.  Thank  God,  and  blessed  be  the  name  of  Him  who 
has  loved  us.  He  did.  But  that  is  not  union,  but  standing  there 
for  us  alone.  All  that  Dr.  Stuart  says  of  its  effect  as  to  our 
sins  I  cordially  say  Amen  to,  as  a  poor  sinner  profiting  by  it, 
though  it  has  done  far  more  also  for  us,  and  glorified  God  Him- 


self,  so  that  man  goes  into  His  glory.  But  this  is  not  union. 
Union  with  Christ  is  in  living  saints  when  He  is  exalted  as 
man  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  the  work  of  redemption,  of  perfect 
redemption,  being  accomplished  when  He  was  alone. 

All  that  Dr.  Stuart  says  as  to  His  being  broken  in  pieces  is 
all  wrong.  A  bone  of  Him  was  not  to  be  broken.  In  the  pass- 
age "  This  is  my  body  which  is  broken  for  you,"  "  broken  "  is 
not  really  in  the  text.  But  on  this  I  do  not  dwell  farther.  As 
Dr.  Stuart  says,  "  He  who  was  to  be  the  bond  of  union  for  ever 
was  left  alone  as  no  other  ever  was,  or  can  be."  With  what  is 
here  said  my  heart  unites,  but  He  was  then  alone.  Only  I  must 
remark  the  customary  looseness  as  to  Scriptural  truth  in  the 
words  "  The  Lamb  of  God  taking  away  the  sins  of  the  world." 
This  is  quite  unsound,  and  nowhere  found  in  Scripture.  The 
sins  of  the  world  are  not  taken  away,  or  there  could  be  no 
judgment ;  indeed  all  would  be  saved.  The  end  of  this  para- 
graph, in  page  15,  I  think  very  objectionable,  but  it  does  not 
specially  bear  on  my  subject. 

All  that  which  follows,  loose  and  unscriptural  though  it 
be  in  expression  yet  true  in  result,  contradicts  consequently  all 
the  statements  as  to  union  before  or  on  the  cross.  "  Through 
His  death  the  Lord  Jesus  sends  His  Holy  Spirit  into  the  hearts 
of  His  redeemed  ;  and  by  that  Spirit,  in  the  day  of  our  effectual 
calling,  we  are  brought  into  a  wondrously  high  and  holy  union 
with  Christ  and  with  God."  Now  I  have  already  said,  in  the 
Scripture  it  is  by  the  Spirit,  when  we  have  received  it,  we  are 
united  to  a  glorified  Christ,  the  only  true  and  Scriptural  union, 
and  we  may  add,  so  of  all  true  saints  with  one  another,  is  by  the 
same  one  Spirit  who  dwells  in  each  of  them.  No  doubt  Christ 
had  to  die  to  send  the  Holy  Spirit  down  here  :  a  plain  proof  if 
we  are  brought  into  union  with  Him  by  it,  that  He  was  not 
united  to  us  in  death  ;  but  "  sends  through  His  death"  has  really 
no  sense.  We  were  unfit  to  receive  it,  save  as  washed  in  His 
blood  and  forgiven  ;  but  sending  through  His  death  has  really 


no  sense.  "  The  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  [  given]  (was  not  as 
known  in  the  New  Testament,  down  here,  though  as  a  divine 
2:)erson  of  course  eternal  in  His  person,  and  operative  in  every 
work  of  God),  because  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified,"  is,  M'hat 
Scripture  says,  John  viL  If  He  went  not  away,  the  Comforter 
would  not  come  :  showing  clearly  the  place  Christ  must  be  in, 
as  man,  before  we  could  be  united  to  Him,  He  the  head  (Eph.  i.) 
and  we  the  body,  "We,  sons  by  faith  in  Jesus  withal,  and  He 
the  Spirit  of  adoption,  making  us,  being  sons,  cry  Abba,  Father, 
the  power,  and  giving  the  consciousness  of  this  new  relationship 
with  the  Father,  and  membership  of  Christ.  But  Scripture 
never  says,  His  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  incongruous,  though  He  bo 
called  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  as  present  in  us,  in  Eom.  viii. 

Kor  is  union  with  God  a  thought  known  to  Scripture  :  a 
common  one  I  grant  it,  but  common  to  the  unscriptural  careless- 
ness so  usual  among  Christians.  All  this  is  loose  confusion. 
And  let  it  not  be  supposed  that  these  things  are  immaterial 
The  true  consciousness  of  our  relationships  with  God  and  the 
Father  and  with  Christ  is  the  atmosphere  in  which  our  Christian 
affections  breathe  and  are  developed.  Communion  with  the 
Father  and  with  His  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  with  God,  Scripture 
speaks  of,  and  it  is  our  highest  blessedness,  but  of  union  with 
God  never.  It  is  unintentional  blasphemy.  Union  is  with 
Christ,  the  man  in  glory.  Speaking  of  union  with  God  only 
destroys  the  veiy  idea  of  union. 

The  statements  of  Dr.  Stuart  on  the  Trinity  are  hazardous, 
going  beyond  Scripture  ;  but  I  suppose  he  means  what  is  truth, 
and  it  is  not  my  present  subject,  so  I  leave  it  there.  The  his- 
tory of  the  doctrine  of  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
professedly  divided  the  Greek  and  Eoman  Churches,  and  which 
was  a  metaphysical  novelty,  forbidden  even  at  Eome  in  the  time 
of  Leo  the  Great,  ought  to  have  taught  Christians  in  these  days 
(whilst  holding  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  personally,  and  unity 
in  theGodhead  without  wavering,)  to  avoid  metaphysical  theology 


in  such  holy  matters,  for  this  question  of  procession  is  mere  meta- 
physics in  divine  things. 

I  now  turn  to  "  some  of  the  great  properties  of  this  oneness." 
Now  in  Dr.  Stuart's  remarks  on  these,  I  gladly  recognise  piety 
and  personal  delight  in  Christ.  But  true  union  is  lost  in  his 
remarks.  He  spealcs  of  gathering  together  in  one  all  the  redeemed 
in  earth  and  heaven.  Of  this  Scripture  never  does  speak.  It 
speaks  of  heading  up  all  things  under  Christ.  And  it  speaks  of 
dying,  not  for  the  Jews  only,  hut  to  gather  together  in  one  the 
children  of  God  Avliich  were  scattered  abroad  ;  so  that  then 
they  had  not  hitherto  been  gathered.  The  unity  of  God's  chil- 
dren down  here  is  spoken  of  in  a  double  way :  the  unity  of 
children  in  a  familv,  in  their  relationship  with  a  holy  Father,  as 
in  John  xvii.,  Christ  the  first-born  among  many  brethren  ;  and 
the  unity  of  the  body  united  to  Christ,  the  head  in  glory.  But 
this  Scriptural  unity  and  oneness  is  lost  in  the  vagueness  of  all 
the  redeemed  in  heaven  and  earth.  That  the  unity  of  the  saints 
in  the  New  Testament  will  not  cease  when  they  are  in  glory,  I 
surely  believe  ;  they  will  then  be  made  perfect  in  one.  That  the 
body  will  then  be  complete,  also,  the  Church  of  the  first-born, 
and  the  just  men  (the  saints  of  the  Old  Testament)  perfected,  I 
do  not  doubt,  though  God  has  reserved  some  better  thine;  for  us. 

But  the  unity  spoken  of  in  Scripture  is  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
sent  down  from  heaven.  As  to  the  body,  by  one  Spirit  we  are 
all  baptized  into  one  body,  Jews  or  Greeks,  Barbarian  or  Scytliian. 
This  clearly  could  not  be  before.  The  Jew,  on  the  contrary,  was 
strictly  bound  to  Ireep  up  the  middle  wall  of  partition,  and 
sinned  if  he  did  not.  Now  by  the  cross  it  is  broken  down  ; 
and  He  has  made  both  one,  and  reconciled  both  in  one  body  to 
God,  having  slain  the  enmity,  and  we  are  builded  together  for  an 
habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit.  There  is  one  body  and 
one  Spirit.  There  was  the  unity  of  a  nation  before,  the  great 
body  of  whom  were  not  converted  at  all.  The  glorified  head,  the 
man  in  glory,  did  not  yet  exist,  who  is  head  over  all  things,  head 


of  the  body.  It  is  not  as  tlie  creating  life-giving  Word  and  Son 
of  God  that  Christ  is  head  over  all  things,  and  to  the  Church 
His  body.  It  is,  as  is  evident  from  Epli.  i.,  the  man  whom  God 
has  raised  and  set  at  His  right  hand.  Then  only,  too,  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  sent  down  from  heaven  ;  He  could  not  be  (John  vii.) 
till  Jesus  was  glorified.  And  as  we  have  seen,  from  1  Cor.  xii., 
then  it  was  by  tlie  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  that  the  saints 
were  baptized  into  one  body. 

So  also  it  is  as  to  known  sonship,  and  the  unity  connected 
with  it,  "  The  heir,  so  long  as  he  is  a  child,  differs  nothing  from 
a  servant  though  he  be  lord  of  all.  .  .  .  But  when  the 
fulness  of  the  time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  His  Son,  made  of  a 
woman,  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were  under 
the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons  ;  and  because 
ye  are^ons  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  His  Son  into  your 
hearts,  crying  Abba,  Father."  Thus  they  are  brought  into 
known  relationship  with  the  Father,  to  be  fully  accomplished  in 
glory,  when  they  will  be  made  perfect  in  one,  Christ  the  first-born 
among  many  brethren.  There  are  two  unities,  that  of  the  family 
and  of  the  body  :  one  a  relationship  with  the  Father,  Christ 
being  the  first-born  ;  the  other  true  union  with  Christ  the  head, 
formed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  come  down  from  heaven,  consequent 
on  His  being  glorified  as  man  : — unities  of  which  Christians 
were  bound  to  maintain  the  manifestation  on  earth,  according  to 
John  xvii.  and  Eph.  iv.  In  both  respects  they  have  failed. 
The  wolf  has  caught  the  sheep  and  scattered  them  (thank  God, 
he  cannot  pluck  (catch)  them  out  of  the  good  Shepherd's  hand), 
and  he  has  set  up  the  travestie  of  unity  in  Popery,  and  all  sorts 
of  churches,  first  national,  and  then  free,  among  those  who  could 
no  longer  bear  the  corruptions  of  Eomanism. 

Scriptural  unity  and  union  is  lost,  nor  scarce  cared  for,  save 
that  God  is  awakening  a  craving  after  it  in  these  last  days.  It 
is  confounded  with  communion,  and  union  of  organisations,  which 
cannot  be  the  unity  of  the  body  nor  of  the  family  of  God.     Puty 


as  to  it  is  forgotten,  and  men  are  content  to  leave  it  to  be  fulfilled 
in  another  world.  Let  us  see  what  Dr.  Stuart  makes  of  it  in 
these  last  pages  of  his  sermon.  The  bond  of  children  is  con- 
founded with  the  membership  of  the  body,  and  this  is  said  to  be 
similar  to  the  union  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  a  gross  and 
utter  mistake  ;  as  if  the  analogies  of  John  xvii.  could  be  applied 
to  the  union  of  the  members  with  the  head.  Apply  only  the 
teaching  of  Ephesians  or  1  Cor.  xii.  to  the  wondrous  statements 
of  John  xvii.  and  see  how  it  offends  every  moral  sense  and 

The  rest  of  this  paragraph,  describing  communion,  I  have 
not  a  word  to  say  against.  Only  in  strange  confusion  using  an 
account  of  tlie  state  of  the  world  (habitable  earth)  under  Christ's 
reign.  Dr.  Stuart  makes  the  spiritual  flock  to  be  a  "  mingled  " 
one  composed  of  wolves  and  lambs  together,  a  sentence  which  I 
profess  myself  wholly  unable  to  comprehend  :  if  he  had  merely 
used  it  as  a  vague  statement  of  peace,  I  should,  but  he  says,  it  is 
a  mingled  flock.  I  first  thought  it  meant  unconverted  and 
converted  together  ;  but  he  goes  on  to  speak  of  spiritual  com- 
munion together,  and  what  the  mingling  is  I  do  not  know. 

How  wholly  union,  in  the  Scriptural  sense,  is  lost  in  the 
thought  of  the  state  of  the  soul,  is  seen  in  what  follows.  That 
Adam  was  the  head  of  his  fallen  race  no  Christian  denies  :  but 
what  union  is  to  a  covenant,  what,  "  as  in  Adam  all  die  "  has  to 
do  with  dissolving  union  with  his  covenant,  I  know  not.  ]SJ"ext 
it  is  union  to  the  world  in  its  allurements  and  power.  "What 
has  this  to  do  with  the  reality  of  union  ?  Then  we  have  union 
to  sin,  which  has  no  sense  at  all  Sin  in  the  flesh  we  read  of, 
captivity  to  it,  deliverance  from  it ;  but  union  to  it  only  bewil- 
ders the  mind.  It  is  tliere  always  in  the  flesh,  though  we  are  no 
longer  under  the  law  of  sin  and  death,  Christ  having  died  to  sin 
once,  and  He  being  our  life  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit.  Then 
we  read  of  union  to  self.  Self  is  self  I  do  not  live  to  self  if  I 
know  the  power  of  redemption  ;  but  all  this  has  nnthing  to  do 


with  iiDion  or  unity.  It  is  my  personal  state  as  having  died  in 
Christ,  and  the  risen  Christ  being  now  my  new  life. 

As  to  crucifying  being  a  Kngering  death  but  a  certain  one,  it 
is  all  a  mischievous  delusion.  If  I  am  crucified  with  Christ,  I  am 
dead — dead  with  Christ,  dead  to  the  law,  ye  are  dead,  crucified 
with  Christ,  nevertheless  alive ;  but  not  I,  but  Christ  living  in 
me  :  there  is  no  lingering  or  gradual  death  spoken  of  in  Scrip- 
ture. I  am  to  reckon  myself  dead,  and  then  for  practice  to  bear 
about  in  the  body  the  dying  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Only  when 
actually  dead,  can  it  be  said  there  is  no  sin  in  me.  The  w^hole 
theory  here  is  un scriptural ;  but  this  by  the  by.  Union  is  lost 
in  the  vague  use  of  it  for  the  state  of  the  soul.  Union  with 
Christ  is  not  simply  life.  As  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead  and 
quickeneth  them,  so  the  Son  quickeneth  whom  He  will.  This 
is  divine  work.  Union  is  connected  with  Christ  seen  as  a  man 
whom  God  has  raised  from  the  dead,  and  us  together  with  Him. 
In  connection  with  union  He  is  not  seen  as  life-giving  Son,  but 
as  a  man  raised  by  God  when  He  was  dead.  Hence  in  Col.  it  is 
also  connected  with  our  having  been  forgiven  all  tres[  asses. 

As  to  the  vine  Dr.  Stuart  is  contradicting  himself,  for  he  has 
recognised  in  this  sermon  that  there  are  temporary  branches 
which  are  taken  away.  I  believe  no  member  of  His  body  wiU 
ever  be  separated  from  Him,  but  the  application  of  the  vine 
does  not  hold  good. 

How  we  get  strength  from  His  crucifixion  in  weakness  I 
know  not,  save  perhaps  by  moral  experience  realising  it. 
Scripture  does  not  speak  of  it.  We  abide  in  Him,  if  we  eat 
His  flesh  and  drink  His  blood,  and,  in  this  sense  eating  Him, 
live  by  Him.  But  it  is  never  said  that  Ave  derive  our  strength 
fromZTjs  crucifixion.  Joy  and  fruit  are  our  state.  Union  is  another 
thing.  Such  statements  deny  its  reality,  and  confound  commu- 
nion and  union. 

The  last  paragraph  is  sorrowful — sorrowful  that  Dr.  Stuart's 
heart  and  conscience  were  not  affected  by  what  he  speaks  of.   He 


recognises  that  the  world's  admiration  has  been  turned  into  a 
taunt,  with  a  saying  sometimes, — "  Behold  how  they  hate  one 
another."  Yet  their  mutual  love  is  as  genuine,  and  in  the  same 
circumstances  would  prove  as  intense,  as  eighteen  hundred  years 
ago.  This  is  to  be  power  for  the  salvation  of  the  world.  What 
is  ?  That  it  would  prove  as  intense  in  the  same  circumstances. 
Does  the  world  say  now,  "  Behold  how  these  Christians  love  one 
another  "  ?  Does  it  not  mock  at  their  divisions  ?  Is  not  corrupt 
Christianity  taunting  them  with  it  ?  Is  not  the  world  turning 
openly  infidel  ?  What  is  this  change  of  circumstances  but  the 
worldliness  and  scattering  of  Christians  ?  Besides,  how  is  it  to 
be  power  for  the  conversion  of  the  world,  when,  in  the  loftiness 
of  his  heart,  he  (the  worldly  man)  would  count  it  despicable  in 
himself  to  be  capable  of  such  an  affection  ?  "  It  speaks  as  a 
living  witness  in  the  hour  when  the  Spirit  moves  on  his  heart." 
No  doubt,  but  then  it  is  not  by  it  he  was  attracted  when  worldly. 
It  is  the  individual  already  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  who 
is  attracted  by  it.  "  To  the  world,"  Dr.  Stuart  tells  us,  "  Chris- 
tian love  is  incomprehensible."  Yet  it  has  great  power  in  con- 
verting it.  It  is  despicable  in  its  eyes,  but  it  is  an  attractive 
spectacle,  ordained  for  the  world's  conversion. 

The  next  property  or  power  in  it  is  in  our  seen  union  with 
Christ  in  heaven.  What  this  means  I  know  not.  ]\Ien  may  see 
the  fruits  of  it  perhaps,  but,  as  distinct  from  these,  where  the 
affections  are  set  on  heavenly  things,  it  cannot  be  seen  at  all. 
There  is  nothing  to  say  to  it  in  the  passage  Dr.  Stuart  quotes. 
The  chief  priests,  etc.,  took  knowledge  of  them  that  they  had 
been  with  Jesus,  that  is,  when  on  earth.  The  general  effect  of 
communion  with  the  Lord  I  surely  do  not  question  ;  but  this 
confusion  of  comnnmion  with  union,  both  in  its  reality  and  in 
its  forming  one  body  on  earth,  is  one  of  the  great  evils  of  the 
day.  It  really  denies  union  and  promotes  disunion  among  saints. 
If  they  can  have  communion  from  time  to  time, — shake  hands 
across  the  hedge,  as  has  been  said, — they  are  content. 


But  there  is  a  craving,  and  from  God.  Union  has  therefore 
been  sought  in  other  ways.  Of  this  even  the  "  Evangelical 
Alliance  "  was  and  is  a  witness  ;  but  the  name  betrays  its  true 
character.  For  an  alliance  there  must  be  two  or  more.  They 
agreed  to  remain  sects,  and  to  meet  notwithstanding.  Indeed 
they  confessed  they  had  pretended  to  attain  to  too  much — unity, 
and  they  must  be  content  with  union.  In  America  it  has  been 
sought  by  interchanges  of  pulpits.  But  there  error  and  truth 
are  all  mingled  together,  and  indifference  to  truth  is  cultivated. 
In  the  English  Establishment  unity  is  sought  in  the  same  way. 
The  most  marked  effort  at  unity  is  in  the  Presbyterian  bodies. 
In  Canada  they  have  coalesced.  In  the  United  States  the  New 
School  and  the  Old  School,  that  is,  Arminians  and  Calvinists 
have  joined. 

lU".  Stuart  alludes  to  the  union  of  the  Eeformed  Presbyterians 
with  what  is  called  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland.  As  an  outward 
thing  one  may  rejoice  in  seeing  fewer  division  among  Protestants. 
As  far  as  my  acquaintance  with  their  state  goes,  the  "  Covenant- 
ers "  were,  perhaps  from  their  small  numbers  and  adherence  to 
principle,  as  a  general  thing,  the  most  godly  and  living  of  the  Pres- 
byterian bodies.  I  trust  they  may  not  lose  it  in  being  swamped 
in  a  larger  one.  But  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  unity  of  the 
body  of  Christ.  Imperfect  as  the  views  of  Dr.  Stuart,  as  to  unity 
are,  as  he  sees  merely  the  building  of  Christians  together  as  the 
children  of  their  heavenly  Father  (a  blessed  union  surely,  but 
not  the  body  of  Christ,  union  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  the  man 
Christ  Jesus  in  glory,  so  as  to  form  His  body) ;  inadequate  and 
defective  as  is  his  general  idea  of  gathering  into  one  all  the 
redeemed  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  of  which  indeed  Scripture 
does  not  speak,  the  unity  he  does  know  is  wholly  inapplicable, 
and  indeed  contrary,  to  these  unions  of  ecclesiastical  bodies. 
They  have  not  the  pretension  to  be  all  saints. 

I  do  not  now  discuss  whether  multitudinous  bodies  are  right 
or  wrong  ;  but  they  are  multitudinous  bodies,  not  a  gathering  of 



saints,  as  such,  to  Jesus'  name.  They  are  not,  cannot  pretend  to 
be,  the  body  of  Christ,  nor  a  part  of  it,  nor  even  the  true  family 
of  God.  Further,  tlieir  object  is  to  impose  religion  on  the  state, 
to  make  the  state  act  on  Christian  principles.  The  gathering 
together  in  one  the  children  of  God  which  were  scattered  abroad 
does  not  enter  their  minds,  but  getting  the  state  to  act  Chris- 
tianly;  and  tliey  insist  on  the  authority  and  independence  of  the 
church  exactl}'-  on  popish  grounds,  not  that  of  a  little  despised 
flock  suffering  under  its  persecution,  but  pressing  its  own  prin- 
ciples on  the  state.  That  Christianity  has  modified  men's  habits 
is  quite  true.  Men  do  not  do  in  the  light  what  they  do  in  the 
dark.  But  making  the  world  Christian  in  its  ways  is  not 
gathering  together  the  children  of  God.  It  is  a  return  to 
Judaism,^  as  indeed  the  "  Covenanters,"  true-hearted  people  as 
they  were,  clearly  did.  They  took  the  sword,  and  perished  with 
the  sword. 

As  to  the  unity  of  the  body,  it  does  not  seem  to  cross  their 
minds,  formed  on  earth  as  it  was  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  But  the  whole  Free  Church  principle  was  a  delusion. 
Christ  is  not  the  King  of  the  church.  Where  is  such  a  thought 
in  Scripture?  "King  of  saints"  in  the  Bevelation  is  a  false  reading 
for  "  King  of  nations,"  borrowed  from  Jeremiah.  King  of  the  Jews 
Scripture  and  the  world's  mockery  own  Him  to  be.  That  He 
will  rule  over  the  nations  is  clearly  revealed.  He  will  take  to 
Him  His  great  power  and  reign  when  divine  wrath  comes.-  The 
kings  of  the  cartli  did  rise  up  against  the  Lord  and  against  His 
anointed.  They  will  make  war  with  the  Lamb,  and  the  Lamb 
will  overcome  them  ;  for  He  is  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords. 
But  Christ  is  not  now  sitting  on  His  own  throne  at  all,  but  on 
the  Father's  (Eev.  iii.  21).  God  has  said  to  Him,  "  Sit  on  my 
right  hand  till  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool."    And  there 

^  For  the  Amenca!i  war  no  suitable  hymns,  we  read,  were  found ;  they  were 
obliged  to  use  the  Psalms.  There  is  Israel  ;  they  could  sing  and  fight.  So  indeed 
in  Scotland. 


the  blessed  One  is  in  glory,  gathering  now  His  joint-heirs,  by 
the  Sj^irit  sent  down  from  heaven  through  the  gospel,  joint 
heirs,  once  all  united,  and  the  manifested  body  of  Christ,  but 
whom  the  wickedness  of  man  and  craft  of  satan  have  long  ara 
scattered, — caught  the  sheep  and  scattered  them — yea,  made  of 
that  which  was  the  church  the  most  heinous  corruption  under 

The  union  of  Presbyterian  or  other  bodies  may  remove  par- 
tially the  reproach  of  Protestantism ;  with  the  unity  of  God's 
children  as  a  family  it  has  nothing  to  do,  and,  as  to  the  unity 
of  the  body  of  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost  here  below,  wholly 
ignores  it. 

King  of  the  church  is  an  utterly  anti-scriptural  thought. 
When  He  will  reign,  we  shall  reign  with  Him.  He  is  now 
sitting  at  the  Father's  right  hand  awaiting  that  time.  ]\Iean- 
while,  as  children  of  one  heavenly  family,  in  relationship  with 
the  Father,  as  members  of  one  only  body,  the  body  of  Christ,  the 
church,  we  should  be  one  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  Christians 
the  crucial  truth  now  is  the  unity  of  the  body  formed  on  earth. 
Where  is  it  ?  As  I  have  often  said,  if  Paul  addressed  a  letter 
to  the  Church  of  God  which  is  at  Edinburgh,  who  would  get  it  ? 
It  would  go  to  the  (ZcarMetter  office.  Alas  !  that  it  is  so.  May 
our  hearts  and  consciences  feel  for  the  ruin  of  the  Lord's  once 
beautiful  flock  ;  look  with  desire-  for  the  unity  of  the  scattered 
sheep ;  and  the  unity  of  His  Spirit  manifesting  His  body  on  earth. 
The  arrangements  of  ecclesiastical  bodies  cannot  effect  this. 

That  I  have  not  misstated  the  link  of  Church  and  State  as 
desired  by  Free  and  lieformed  Churches,  we  have  only  to  read 
Dr.  Goold  claiming  acceptance  of  "  Covenanters' "  principles.  Dr. 
Eainy,  and  Mr.  M'Dermid,  where  it  is  stated  in  language  stronger 
and  more  positive  than  that  which  I  have  used.  The  church 
claimed  to  have  free  entrance  into  every  chamber  of  the  national 
life.  They  are  to  bring  nations,  in  their  national  capacity,  into 
religious  subjection  to  God,  and  conformed  to  His  will.     I  only 


notice  it  now,  not  to  controvert  it  as  a  system — a  system  in 
which  Popery  has  a  far  better  chance — but  to  show  that  their 
system,  and  their  unity,  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  Avitli 
gathering  together  in  one  the  children  of  God  which  were  scat- 
tered abroad,  or  with  the  unity  of  the  body.  "What  is  called  for 
is  the  full  recognition  of  and  submission  to  the  authority  of  the 
Word  of  God,  the  Scriptures,  the  recognition  of  the  presence  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from  heaven  consequent  on  the 
accomplishment  of  redemption,  and  Jesus  as  man  being  at  the 
right  hand  of  God,  sent  down  to  abide  with  us  for  ever,  and 
dwell  in  believers  and  in  the  assembly,  and  the  waiting  for 
God's  Son  from  heaven.  The  unity  of  the  Spirit  is  the  only 
true  unity,  till  God  heads  up  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth  in 
one  under  Christ.  He  gave  Himself  to  gather  together  in  one 
the  children  of  God  which  were  scattered  abroad.  The  unity  of 
the  body  God  will  maintain  till  it  be  displayed  in  glory.  The 
members  of  Christ's  body  will  not  be  separated  from  Him  ;  but 
the  manifestation  of  this  on  earth,  by  the  power  and  grace  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  1  Cor.  xii.,  was  the  calling  of  the 
saints,  and,  though  shorn  of  much  of  its  glory,. their  responsi- 
bility now.  They  have  the  promise  of  all  needed  grace  and 
gift  in  Eph.  iv.,  according  to  His  faithfulness  who  gave  Himself 
for  us  to  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  to  purify  to  Himself 
a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works. 


It  is  evidently  an  all-important  question,  Have  we  a  revelation 
from  God  ?  a  communication  of  His  thoughts  on  which  we  can 
rely  ?  Is  there  nothing  certain,  nothing  certainly  known,  no- 
thing which  enables  me  to  say,  I  have  God's  truth  ?  Have  I 
from  God  such  a  revelation  of  His  mind  as  is  authentic  and 
authoritative,  such  that  I  can  know  from  Himself  what  God  is  ? 

I  cannot  trust  in  man.  INIan  who  has  not  had  such  a  revela- 
tion is  lost  in  what  degrades  human  nature.  I  cannot  trust 
the  church  or  doctors.  They  too  have  their  history,  and  what 
a  history  it  is  ! — and  in  these  days  they  are  a  reed  which,  if  a 
man  lean  on  it,  breaks  and  pierces  the  hand.  Where  am  I  to 
turn  to  be  able  to  say,  Here  I  have  the  truth  I  can  love  and  rest 
on  ?  Here  is  what  God  has  given  me  from  Himself  ?  To  have 
this  I  must  have  two  things — a  revelation  from  God,  if  every 
man  is  a  liar,  here  is  truth.  But  I  must  have  it  also  communi- 
cated authentically  to  be  able  to  reckon  it.  It  is  a  matter  of  fact 
that  men  have  not  known  God,  nor  His  character,  without  a  re- 
velation. Universal  heathenism,  civilised  and  uncivilised,  is  the 
witness  of  it.  They  have  not  liked  retaining  Him  in  their 
knowledge  when  He  was  revealed  to  them.  It  is  no  use  telling 
me  that  the  worship  of  Lingm  and  Yoni,  of  cats  and  monkeys 
and  fetishes,  is  a  true  knowledge  of  God.  It  may  prove  that  man 
wants  a  God,  that  he  cannot  help  liaving  one  ;  but,  if  so,  that  he 
cannot  find  Him,  or  will  not  have  Him. 

The  case  then  stands  thus  :  I  look  all  around  to  find  God 
and  His  truth.  The  heathen  cannot  point  Him  out  ;  I  cannot 
find  man  among  them  that  is  not  degraded.  He  deifies  his 
passions  and  adds  degradation  to  them. 

^  Ejicyclopcedia  Britannica.     Ninth  Edition.     Article  "  Bible. " 


I  am  told  perhaps,  But  Plato,  does  lie  tell  us  nothing  of 
God  ?  Well,  if  I  leave  the  universal  heathenism,  and  enclose 
myself  in  the  narrow  groves  of  the  academy,  I  find  one  who 
teaches  the  grossest  communism,  women  and  all,  and  makes  men 
and  women  a  mere  stock  for  breeding  human  beings  for  the  re- 
public, and  holds  that  the  supreme  God  can  have  no  direct  com- 
munication with  the  creature  ;  but  that  it  must  be  by  demons, 
and  mediately,  perhaps,  the  X&'yoj.  He  was,  with  the  Eabbhiical 
Jews,  strange  to  say,  the  inventor  of  purgatory.  The  later 
forms  of  it  brought  in  Arianism,  I  cannot  find  it  among  Maho- 
medans,  nor  their  paradise  of  Houris  above  and  the  sword  below. 
The  Koran,  which  on  the  face  of  it  is  a  wretched  imposition — re- 
velations invented  for  the  occasion  that  called  for  them — the 
Koran  or  the  sword  is  not  a  revelation  of  God,  save  as  a  judicial 
scourge  of  Christendom.  The  Jews  cannot  tell  me  of  God,  cast 
out  from  Him  according  to  their  own  Scriptures.  Am  I  to  learn 
it  in  the  intrigues  of  the  Jesuits,  rendering  every  nation  under 
heaven  restless  ?  or  in  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  which  no- 
body, but  grossly  ignorant  partizans,  believes  and  history  gives 
the  lie  to?  am  I  to  worship  the  golden  idols  of  the  mother  of  God 
set  up  on  steeples  and  highways  where  there  is  power  to  do  so  ? 
Is  this  to  be  my  resting-place  ? 

Shall  I  turn  to  Protestants?  But  the  mass  of  teachers 
amongst  them  are  infidels  in  most  parts.  Perhaps  I  may  have 
the  choice  of  Puscyism  or  liberalism,  or  countless  opinions  and 
heresies  which  contradict  and  destroy  each  other.  Am  I  told 
that  there  is  a  real  consent  in  the  evangelical  creeds  ?  I  do  not 
quite  admit  it ;  Luther  did  not  think  so.  They  all  agree  in  one 
thing — baptismal  regeneration.  But  if  I  inquire  whether  the 
teachers  believe  in  tlie  fonnularies  they  sign — not  one  of  them  : 
they  are  obsolete.  What  am  I  to  do  ?  Say  with  Pilate,  AYhat 
is  truth  ?  and  wash  my  hands  in  despair  and  give  up  Christ  to 
His  enemies  ?     But  we  have  the  word  of  God  to  rest  on. 

Ah,  here  there  is  something — God  worthily  revealed.    But — 


'the  most  Tinkindest  cut  of  all' — it  is  not,  I  am  now  told,  the  word 
of  God.  It  is  a  compilation  of  various  traditions  and  documents 
some  seven  or  eight  centuries  after  it  professes  to  be  written, 
drawn  God  knows  whence  (only  not  from  Him),  and  by  God 
knows  whom ;  partly  a  law  produced  some  seven  or  eight  hundred 
years  after  it  professed  to  be  written,  with  some  of  its  documents 
recognised  as  already  existent,  perhaps,  at  that  date ;  professed 
prophecies  put  together  by  some  compiler  frequently  under  some 
name  they  do  not  belong  to  ;  a  long  conflict  having  subsisted 
between  the  moral  element  and  the  ceremonial  or  priestly,  but 
the  former  got  the  victory  in  Ezra's  time,  but  only  then,  though 
they  never  had  the  law  as  it  is  till  Josiah's  time !  and  yet, 
strange  to  say,  they  got  the  victory  only  to  fix  the  nation  in  cere- 
monialism and  the  authority  of  priestly  tradition  which  it  had 
never  been  before  !  Besides  the  two  chief  documents,  however, 
from  which  the  early  history  is  compiled,  and  other  parts  suited 
to  them  by  the  compiler,  another  author  has  been  discovered 
whose  writings  are  intermingled  with  the  two  chief  ones,  and 
whose  object  is  to  attach  importance  to  the  progenitors  of 
northern  Israel.  Prophets  claim  an  intuition  coming  from  God ; 
still  their  great  object  was  not  future  events. 

Such  are  the  Scriptures.  They  are,  if  we  are  to  believe  these 
learned  men,  not  the  word  of  God,  but  an  uncertain  compilation 
flowing  from  the  progress  of  Israel's  history,  partly  from  priests, 
under  whom  the  laws  grew  up,-  never  complete  till  Ezra,  partly 
from  prophets  contending  with  their  principles  (not,  mind,  with 
their  sins  against  God  or  their  breaches  of  the  law,  it  was  not 
formed  yet),  partly  from  lay  life  in  the  midst  of  the  people.  These 
are  the  factors  (that  is  the  word)  of  the  Old  Testament.  As  to 
the  New :  well,  four  epistles  may  be  Paul's,  the  expression  of  the 
higher  spiritual  life  in  the  Christian  ;  the  rest  spurious  or  doubt- 
ful, and  much  of  it  comparatively  a  modern  attempt  to  reconcile 
the  Pauline  and  Petrine  factions  in  the  Church,  or  a  late  fruit  of 
Alexandrian  philosophy  and  reveries  or  Jewish  symbolism. 


It  is  no  great  wonder  if  a  very  large  body  of  the  French 
Protestant  clergy  declared  they  would  sign  nothing,  no  Apostles' 
Creed,  nor  anything  else  ;  they  supposed  men  would  have  to 
believe  something,  but  they  did  not  know  what  it  was  yet ;  and 
the  poor  laity,  not  so  learned,  but  more  of  babes,  said,  as  I  know 
them  to  have  done,  "  Pourtant,  si  nous  sommes  des  Chretiens,  il 
nous  faut  un  Christ  quelcouque"  (^Yell,  but  if  we  are  Cluistians, 
we  must  have  some  kind  of  Christ).  Such  is  the  point  to  which 
what  is  called  the  Cliurch  has  brought  us.  Not  now  priestly 
ceremonies  and  traditions  combated  and  corrected  by  prophets 
professing  divine  intuition,  but  priestly  and  ecclesiastical 
ceremonies  and  traditions  bringing  weariness  to  the  spirit 
(where  it  does  not  rush  to  popery  as  a  refuge),  merging  into 
heartless  and  flippant  infidelity,  living  in  a  speculative  pseudo- 
historical  outside,  without  one  spiritual  apprehension  of  the 
divine  substance  of  what  lies  at  their  door  and  before  their 
heart — speculations  which  last  some  twenty  years  or  so,  first 
Paulus'  gross  denial  of  miracles  and  resurrection,  then  Strauss 
with  his  mythical  Christ,  and  then  Baur  and  the  Tubingen 
school,  the  false  speculative  fancies  of  which  are  already  judged 
and  given  up  ;^  and  now  the  later  forms  of  these  and  De  Wette 
and  the  like,  warmed  up  anew  for  Scotland ;  as  the  English  in 
such  things  generally  do  when  they  have  passed  their  day  in 
their  native  country. 

It  is  admitted  that  Professor  Smith  has  exacrsrerated  what  a 
child  may  see  in  Scripture,  and,  I  add,  through  ignorance  of 
Scripture  not  understood  it,  and  that  his  system  as  to  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  cannot  hold  water.     I  shall  be 

^  That  I  may  not  be  thought  from  sciiptural  prejudice  to  overstate  the  judg- 
ment formed  on  Baur's  theory,  I  may  refer  to  a  laudatory  article  on  Baur  in  the 
columns  of  the  Encrjdojoocdia  Britannica,  in  which  the  article  of  Professor  Smith 
which  has  given  rise  to  these  remarks  is  found.  "  Unhappily, "  so  the  article  closes, 
"  his  own  opinions  were  influenced,  not  merely  by  his  study  of  facts,  but  by  a 
great  speculative  system  which  dominated  his  intelligence  and  prevented  him 
from  seeing,"  etc. 


told  that  for  all  that  Astruc's  theory  and  Baur's  reasoning  have 
produced  an  immense  effect.  They  have  in  those  not  taught  of 
God ;  not  in  substituting  any  certain  system,  but  in  turning 
lifeless  dogmatism  into  speculative  infidelity  and  scepticism. 

And  where  is  the  word  of  God  ?  where  it  always  was,  as 
light  is  in  the  sun.  J\Ien  may  have  found  olive  leaves,  and 
these  be  broken  up  into  small  patches  of  light,  or  hang  over 
the  spots  in  a  way  not  to  be  explained.  It  may  be  found 
that  the  spots  are  coincident  with  auroras  and  magnetic  distur- 
bances ;  but  those  who  have  eyes  walk,  as  tliey  ever  did,  in  its 
full  and  clear  divinely-given  light.  It  shines  as  it  ever  did,  and 
the  entering  in  of  the  word  gives  light  and  understanding  to  the 
simple.  They  have  a  nature  that  can  estimate  it  in  the  true 
character  God  gave  it,  which  these  learned  men  have  not ;  for 
He  hides  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  reveals 
them  unto  babes.  "  They  shall  be  all  taught  of  God,"  is  the  de- 
claration of  the  Lord  and  the  prophet  for  those  who  can  hear. 

That  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  were  collected  into  their 
present  form  a  good  w^hile  before  the  Lord  was  on  earth,  no  one 
is  interested  in  contesting  ;  indeed,  far  from  it,  for  Christ  owns 
the  divisions  which  now  exist.  Attributed  to  the  great  San- 
hedrim, on  (it  is  said)  insufficient  ground,  or  referred  to  Ezra, 
they  were  at  any  rate  so  collected ;  though  Mr.  Smith  slurs  it 
quickly  over  to  refer  to  doubts  as  to  Esther.  Josephus  is 
very  express.  There  are  not,  he  tells  us,  a  multitude  of  books, 
but  just  twenty-two  :  that  they  had  histories  and  writings  after 
Artaxerxes,  but  they  had  not  the  same  authority,  they  were 
not  tested  by  prophets.  That  the  books  -vvere  collected,  we  can 
thank  God  for.  Whether  the  history  of  Paith  be  connected 
with  Judges,  or  the  Lamentations  with  Jeremiah,  or  relegated 
to  the  Ketubim,  is  of  no  sort  of  consequence.  Their  place  in 
the  history  is  plain  upon  the  face  of  them.  It  is  not  to  the 
believer  a  question  who  wrote  Paith.  He  receives  them  as  the 
word  of  God.    God  is  their  author.    It  is,  as  Matthew  expresses 


it,  ■j--h  Kvi'io-o  bia  rcu  -io;pr,-ou —  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet.  It  is 
also  true  that,  in  collecting  the  books,  short  notes  may  have  been 
added,  such  as,  There  they  are  to  this  day,  or  other  brief  note  of 
the  kind.  Such  there  are,  interesting  as  divinely-given  history, 
but  in  no  way  affecting  the  revelation.  The  book  clearly  shows 
that  as  a  whole  it  is  inspired  and  ordered  in  its  structure  by 
God  ;  and  when  all  this  was  done  to  make  it  a  whole,  this 
divine  ordering  of  God's  hand  and  wisdom  may  be  in  such  notes 
as  elsewhere.  The  question  is.  Is  this  book  given  to  us  of  God 
as  a  revelation,  given  to  us  as  it  is  ?  Is  what  is  in  it  revealed  of 
God,  or  man's  thoughts  ? 

The  booli  professes  to  be  an  account  of  all  God's  ways  from 
tlie  creation  (and  even  in  purpose  before  it)  till  the  Lord  comes, 
and  even  to  the  end  of  time,  till  God  can  say  yiyove,  It  is  done  ; 
I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  ending.  It  pro- 
fesses further  to  give  us  a  revelation  of  the  Father  in  the  Son. 
Is  this  immense  undertaking,  a  revelation  of  God,  or  a  develop- 
ment of  national  life  in  a  little  petty  nation,  for  our  learned 
men  can  see  no  more  ?  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time  :  the 
only-begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  tlie  Father,  lie 
hath  declared  Him.  Is  that  a  revelation  of  God  or  not  ?  That 
is,  is  the  account  I  have  of  it  of  God,  as  God  has  given  it  to 
us  ?  for  otherwise  it  is  no  revelation  to  me  or  to  any  one  else. 

Serious  questions  these.  The  very  undertaking  proves  its 
source.  Had  man  done  it,  what  should  we  have  liad  ?  AVhat 
have  we  outside  this  wondrous  book  ?  Their  theory  is,  it  is  an 
imposture ;  for  giving  statements  hundreds  of  years  later  than 
their  alleged  date,  as  if  all  were  written  by  inspiration  at  that 
date,  is  an  imposition,  and  this  from  a  nation  constantly  running 
into  idolatry,  and  condemned  by  the  book  !  And  further  (can  any 
but  learned  men  be  blessed  with  such  credulity?)  persuading  the 
people  whom  the  forgers  were  condemning  by  it,  that  they  had 
always  had  this  law  as  a  law  from  God  Himself,  when,  if  these 
doctors  and  the  Josiah  theory  be  true,  they  never  had  had  it  at 

HA  VE  IVE  A  REVELATION  FROM  GOD?        to? 

all,  it  was  bran  new,  or  some  old  traditions  furbished  up  from 
different  old  documents  for  the  occasion  ;  and  remark  further— 
for  this  we  must  now  look  into— that  Christ  and  His  apostles 
either  from  God  confirmed  the  delusion  or  deceived  the  people, 
and  all  those  they  taught,  on  purpose!  That  an  imposture, 
moreover,  is  the  holiest  production  that  ever  appeared  in  the 
world,  bearing  to  every  one  that  has  any  moral  sensibilities  a 
divine  stamp  upon  it,  which  nothing  else  in  the  world  has,  crcdat 
Judaciis  Apellcs.  As  Eousseau  said,  it  would  have  been  a  gi-eater 
miracle  for  man  to  invent  such  a  life  as  Christ's,  than  to  be  it. 

I  will  touch  on  some  of  the  grounds  they  build  their  theory  on  ; 
but  I  first  turn  to  the  book  itself.     First  of  all,  it  is  treated  as  a 
whole  by  Christ  and  His  apostles  as  having  a  well-known  and 
specific  character.  "The  Scripture  cannot  be  broken"  (John  x.  35). 
"  Theja  opened  he  their  understanding,  that  they  should  under- 
stand the  Scriptures"  (Luke  xxiv.  45).    "  Search  the  Scriptures" 
(John  V.  39).     They  were  a  recognised  collection  which  the  Lord 
owned.     And,  yet  more  precisely,  owned  as  we  have  them  now 
and  the  Jews  had  them  then.     All  things  must  be  fulfilled 
which  are  written  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  Propliets  and 
in  the  rsalms,  concerning  INIe.    Here  is  the  Torah,  Nebiim,  and 
the  Ketubim,— the  three  divisions  which  the  Jews  distinguish 
by  the  Gradus  Mosaicus,  Gradus  Propheticus,  and  the  Bath  Kol ; 
in  the  two  first,  authorised  by  Num.  xii.  6-8,  the  latter  human, 
in  which  their  idea  is  that  the  ^^Titer,  though  inspired,  expressed 
the  sentiments  animating  his  own  mind,  not  knowing  that  all 
that  was  contained  in  it  was  the  mind  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ; 
which  is  doubtless  true  often  in  such  books  as  the  Psalms. 

Christ  owned,  then,  what  we  call  the  Old  Testament,  and 
owned  it  as  we  and  the  Jews  have  it.  But  He  goes  farther  ; 
He  owns  them  according  to  their  present  character  and  authors. 
"  Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  law,  and  yet  none  of  you  keepeth 
the  law  ?"  (John  vii.  19).  "  Moses,  therefore,  gave  you  circum- 
cision, not  because  it  is  of  Closes,  but  of  the  father-"  (22). 


"  There  is  one  that  accuseth  you,  even  Moses  in  whom  ye  trust ; 
for  had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  have  believed  Me  ;  for  he 
wrote  of  Me.  But  if  ye  believe  not  his  writings,  how  shall  ye 
believe  My  words  ? "  (John  v.  45-47).  "  If  he  called  them  gods, 
unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came,  and  the  Scripture  cannot  be 
broken  "  (x.  35).  This  alludes  to  the  Judges  being  called  Elohim 
in  Hebrew.  They  shall  bring  him  to  the  "judges"  being  very 
commonly  Elohim,  god  or  gods.  "Abraham  said  unto  him,  They 
have  Moses  and  the  prophets,  let  them  hear  them.  And  he  said. 
Nay,  Father  Abraham  ;  but  if  one  went  anto  them  from  the  dead, 
they  will  repent.  And  he  said  unto  him.  If  they  hear  not  Moses 
and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded  though  one  rose 
from  the  dead"  (Luke  xvi.  29-31).  How  true  it  has  been  with 
these  poor  Jews  and  these  unhappy  infidels  !  Christianity  and 
the  resurrection  of  the  Lord  are  of  no  avail  if  IMoses  and  the 
prophets  are  not  believed,  and  believed  in  their  writings,  for 
surely  they  had  them.  "  He  wrote  of  Me.  If  ye  believe  not 
his  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  My  words  ? " 

Eemark  further  here  that  Sej)tuagint  translations,  the  "  Com- 
piler's" additions,  and  all  that  these  speculators  allege,  were  there 
then  the  same  as  now,  the  same  collection,  the  collection  as  we 
have  it ;  and  Christ  owned  and  insisted  on  the  authority  of  that, 
and  that  as  being  Moses'  writings. 

But  further,  after  His  resurrection,  not  even  when  dealing  with 
Jews  who  owned  them,  but  of  and  from  Himself  for  His  disciples, 
the  risen  Lord,  "  beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets,  ex- 
pounded to  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning  Him- 
self" (Luke  xxiv.  27).  Think  of  the  risen  Christ  expounding  to  his 
disciples  a  set  of  ill-compiled  and  contradictory  old  documents, 
pretended  to  be  IMoses  and  the  prophets.  But  this  is  not  all ; 
they  will  say  perhaps — for  what  will  the  folly  of  learned  infidelity 
not  say? — they  were  only  the  things  concerning  Himself  which  He 
selected.  "  These  are  the  words  which  I  spake  unto  you  while  I 
was  yet  with  you,  that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled  which  were 


written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  Prophets,  and  in  the 
Psalms,  concerning  Me.  Then  opened  He  their  understanding 
that  they  might  understand  the  Scriptures,  and  said  unto  them," 
Thus  it  is  written."  Ah  !  the  written  word  is  what  He  valued. 
Only  just  thiuk  of  the  risen  Lord  opening  with  divine  power 
His  disciples'  understanding  to  understand  a  spurious  compila- 
tion professing  to  be  written  by  Moses  and  others  !  That  He 
should  do  so  that  we  might  understand  the  Divine  Word  we  can 
well  conceive,  and,  if  taught  of  God,  we  know  the  need  of  it; 
but  to  do  it  for  an  imposition,  pretending  to  be  what  it  is  not, 
an  infidel  speculator  alone  would  believe.  But  the  "unjust 
knoweth  no  shame." 

Again,  the  Lord  recognises  the  prophets  as  we  have  seen, 
and  specifies  the  one  most  called  in  question,  Daniel,  "the 
abomination  of  desolation  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the  prophet." 
The  reading  is  called  in  question  in  Mark,  but  not  in  Matthew, 
and  the  reading  in  Mark  confirms  the  genuineness  in  Matthew, 
and  further  recognises  the  commandments  as  given  by  Moses 
to  be  spoken  by  God ;  for  God  commanded,  saying,  Honour  thy 
father  and  thy  mother  (Matt.  xv.  4) ;  and  again  Isaiah  (verse  7), 
Well  did  Esaias  prophesy  concerning  you,  saying.  This  is  in  the 
first  part.  But  He  takes  up  also  the  second  part  of  the  "  Great 
Unnamed."  There  was  delivered  to  Him  the  book  of  the  pro- 
phet Esaias,  and  when  He  had  opened  the  book,  He  found  the 
place  where  it  was  written  (ah!  that  is  the  word),  The  Spirit  of  the 

Lord  is  upon  me And  He  began  to  say,  This  day  is  this 

Scripture  fulfilled  in  your  ears.  He  was  content  to  accept  it  as 
Isaiah,  and  affirms,  what  is  of  far  more  importance,  and  only 
really  so,  that  it  was  of  God  Himself  (Luke  iv.  17-21).  In  the 
same  chapter  He  authenticates  the  books  of  Kings  and  the  his- 
tory of  Elijah  and  Elisha.  He  indirectly  authenticates  again  the 
last  part  of  Isaiah  (Luke  vii.  27)  in  the  prophecy  of  John 
Baptist  (Is.  xl.  3).     I  need  hardly  quote  more  passages. 

The  discourses,  Hfe,  and  outgoings  of  the  Lord's  soul,  though 


going  necessarily  far  beyond  it,  and  showing  it  was  to  be  set 
aside,  as  under  the  old  covenant,  for  the  accomplishment  of 
far  more  glorious  counsels,  that  the  law  and  the  prophets  were 
until  John,  since  then  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  preached, 
— the  whole  discourses  and  life  of  Jesus,  I  repeat,  if  the  Gospels 
be  read  in  simplicity  of  heart,  will  be  found  interwoven  with 
the  truth  of  the  law  and  the  prophets  as  they  are  presented  to  us 
in  ordinary  Bibles,  authenticating  them  as  they  are,  so  that  you 
must  tear  away  all  the  revelation  of  Christ  in  them  to  remove 
the  authority  of  the  law  and  the  prophets.  He  did  not  come  to 
destroy  but  to  fulfil  them.  Fulfil  what  ?  A  poor  compilation  of 
Ezra's  time,  or  fragmentary  documents  made  up  by  man,  gradually 
grown  up  into  a  law  unknown  at  the  beginning  ?  or  the  word  of 
God  given  by  inspiration  to  Moses  and  those  whom  Jehovah 
had  sent  ?  He  was  born  in  Bethlehem,  because  by  God's  will 
the  prophet  had  said  so.  He  dies,  because  if  not,  how  then 
shall  the  Scriptures  be  fulfilled  that  thus  it  must  be  ?  Till 
heaven  and  earth  passed,  not  one  jot  or  one  tittle  would  in 
anywise  pass  from  the  law  till  all  be  fulfilled. 

I  may  turn  then  to  the  servants  of  Christ  when  He  had 
been  rejected,  the  apostles  and  writers  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  apostles,  those  authorised  and  sent  by  Him  to  announce 
Christian  truth,  and  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost  for  this  service, 
and  the  other  inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testament  affirm,  or, 
which  in  a  certain  aspect  is  stronger,  assume,  everywhere  that  the 
Old  Testament,  as  we  and  the  Jews  (enemies  of  Christianity,  but 
in  this  Avitnesses  with  it)  have  it,  is  an  inspired  record,  written  by 
those  to  whom  it  is  ascribed,  and  given  of  God.  I  can  under- 
stand that  the  Baurs  and  Smiths  (who,  as  rocks  that,  originating 
nothing,  can  only  repeat  a  sound,  echo  them)  think  themselves 
more  competent  to  tell  us  what  Christianity  and  the  truth  is 
than  Christ  and  his  apostles.  I  have  met  such,  men  who  did 
not  scruple  to  say  so,  though  checked  somewhat  by  the  scandal 
80  speaking  of  Christ  gave ;  I  have  met  them  in  Europe  and  the 


United   States;  but  all  are  not  quite  fit  for  that  yet.     Such 
thoughts  are  soon  sunk  in  the  deep  sea  of  lifeless  infidelity. 

Let  us  enquire  then  what  the  apostles  or  others  do  say.  And 
first  I  will  take  what  are  called  the  great  epistles  of  Paul,  what 
Baur  takes  as  the  sure  ground  of  historical  Christianity.  To 
begin  with  tlie  Eomans,  though  chronologically  the  last  of  the 
four.  Paul,  he  tells  us,  was  separated  to  the  gospel  of  God  which 
He  had  promised  before  by  the  prophets  in  the  Holy  Scriptures 
concerning  His  Son  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  made  of  the  seed  of 
David  according  to  the  flesh.  Here  holy  Scriptures,  holy  writings 
are  owned  ;  the  prophets  are  God's  prophets  ;  and  the  whole  sys- 
tem announced  Ijy  them  of  the  promise  to  the  Seed  of  David  run- 
ning through  the  prophetic  writings  and  Psalms,  from  Samuel 
and  all  the  prophets,  is  fully  and  clearly  owned.  Paul  founds  his 
own  teaching  on  them,  adding  of  course  the  fact  of  the  resurrection. 
What  advantage  had  the  Jew  ?  Much  every  way,  but  chiefly 
what  ? — that  unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God. 
Such  were  these  holy  writings.  The  special  blessing,  and  they 
had  many,  was  that  they  had  the  oracles  of  God.  Poor  Paul !  to 
be  so  dark,  untaught,  as  I  have  heard  such  say,  by  modern 
science.  But  what  was  the  force  of  this  ? — man's  unbelief  could 
not  make  the  faith  of  God  of  none  effect.  These  oracles  were 
so  thoroughly  of  God  that  His  faithfulness  was  involved  in  them, 
in  making  them  good.  But  He  shows  Jews  and  Gentiles  all 
under  sin.  How  is  that  ?  It  is  written  (iii.  10).  The  Psalms 
and  Lsaiah  are  warrant  for  the  assertion,  and  as  to  the  text,  the 
"Great  Unnamed"  has  the  passage.  (Isa.  lix.)  It  may  be  weari- 
some to  quote  so  many  texts,  but  they  show  that  it  was  not 
merely  a  quotation  to  support  a  point,  but  that  the  apostles  lived 
in  and  based  their  teaching  on  what  modern  rationalists  deny. 

What  (Pvoni.  iv.)  saith  the  Scripture?  Abraham  believed  God, 
etc.  Here  Genesis  is  authenticated  as  the  Scripture,  the  word 
of  God.  Xext  David  describeth  the  blessedness  of  this  man. 
Here    the    Psalms   are   authenticated.      Again,    v.   14 :    it  is 


Genesis  v.  13.  Death  reigned  from  Adam  to  ]\Ioses.  This  was 
until  the  law.  Here  the  whole  history  of  Genesis  as  to  the  fall 
of  Adam  under  a  law  as  to  the  forbidden  fruit,  no  law  till 
jNIoses,  but  death  reigning  by  Adam's  fall,  then  the  law  being 
given  by  Moses  changing  the  ground  on  which  man  stood,  not 
as  to  sin  and  death  but  as  to  transgression,  wdien  there  was  (as 
in  the  two  cases  of  Adam  and  Moses)  an  actual  law,  is  treated 
not  merely  as  a  Jehovistic  or  Elohistic  fragmentary  compilation, 
but  as  God's  account  of  man's  whole  moral  standing  with  Him- 
self till  grace  was  rejected,  in  the  gospel  prophesied  of  indeed, 
but  now  actually  meeting  man's  need  as  taught  by  the  apostle 
in  this  epistle,  which,  precious  as  it  is,  it  is  not  my  business  to 
enter  into  now. 

I  pass  over  some  passages  confirmatory  of  this  use  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  stop  for  a  moment  at  chap.  ix.  Here 
Israel  are  dear  to  Him  as  having  law  and  promises,  and  even 
Christ  as  concerning  the  flesh.  But  where  was  all  this  shown 
to  be  so  when  they  were  a  rejected  people?  Not  as  though 
the  word  of  God  had  taken  none  effect ;  and  then  all  tlie  his- 
tory of  Genesis  is  treated  as  the  word  of  God,  and  the  account 
in  Exodus  is  cited,  first,  as  declaring  that  God  spoke  to  Moses, 
and  then  as  to  the  history  of  Pharaoh.  And  here  it  is  as  Scrip- 
ture says  it.  This  is  for  Paul  the  same  as  God  saying  it.  Next 
Hosea  is  cited  as  the  word  of  God.  "He  saith  in  Osee." 
Esaias  also  crieth,  quoted  as  of  the  same  authority  as  God 
speaking  in  Osee;  and  this  estimate  of  Scripture  we  shall  find 
uniform.  If  he  quotes  the  law  (x.),  ]\Ioses  describeth  the  right- 
eousness which  is  of  the  law.  And  here  note  Deuteronomy  is 
quoted  as  what  ]\Ioses  says.  Eor  the  learned  men  this  is  the 
Deuteronomic  law  first  recognised  by  Jeremiah  in  Josiah's  time. 
Perhaps  from  the  latest  hand  of  all,  at  least  if  we  are  to  believe 
Graf.  But  farther  it  appears  that  the  "  Great  Unnamed  "  was 
for  Paul  Isaiah  himself  For  Esaias  saith,  Lord,  who  hath  be- 
lieved our  report  ?  (Isa.  liii.)     Then  Deuteronomy  is  again  quoted 


as  written  by  Moses,  and  the  "  Great  Unnamed  "  again  as  Esaias, 
who  is  very  bold  (Isa.  Ixv.)  Then  we  have  the  book  of  Kings 
authenticated  (Eom.  xi.)  God  has  not  cast  away  His  people. 
How  can  I  know  this  is  God's  mind  ?  "Wot  ye  what  the  Scrip- 
ture saith  of  Elias  ?  .  .  .  But  what  saith  the  answer  of  God  unto 
him?  I  can  reckon  on  the  Scripture  as  giving  me  God's  mind 
and  purpose.  So  if  Israel  be  blinded  for  a  time  it  is  written 
(xi.  8),  quoting  Deiit.  xxix. ;  "  And  David  saith  :"  so  the  Psalms 
were  a  true  testimony  of  God  to  what  was  going  to  happen. 
Again  in  Eom.  xv.  we  find  Deuteronomy  quoted  as  "He  ;"  that 
is,  in  the  formula  of  quotation,  the  Scripture  is  God  speaking. 
The  Psalms  and  Isaiah  himself  are  quoted  as  the  word  of  God. 

In  Corinthians,  a  book  of  church  details,  the  quotations  are 
not  so  many,  but  it  shows  that  it  is  taken  for  granted  it  is 
divine.  The  law  is  the  law  of  jMosos  (ix.  9) ;  and  this  is 
God's  mind,  taken  for  granted  as  being  so.  "  Doth  God  take  care 
for  oxen  ?  "  What  Moses  taught  was  what  God  taught.  The 
history  of  the  Exodus  and  the  wilderness  was  God's  history 
of  His  people,  and  His  dealings  with  them  recorded  for  our 
instruction  (1  Cor.  x.  1-14).  Again  (xi,  9),  the  creation  of  Adam 
and  Eve  (Gen.  ii.)  is  quoted  as  a  divine  account  sufficient  to 
build  moral  duties  on.  In  chap.  xv.  54,  55,  Isaiah  and  another 
of  the  prophets  are  quoted  as  fulfilled  in  resurrection.  In 
2  Cor.  iii.  the  account  of  ]Moses  veiling  his  face  is  quoted  from 
Exodus  as  showing  the  true  character  of  the  law,  and  Israel's 

Galatians  gives  us  the  same  testimony.  Take  chap.  iii.  Tlie 
Pentateuch  is  referred  to  as  a  sure  and  certain  testimony  for 
faith,  and  Scripture  spoken  of  as  God  Himself,  being  His  word. 
"  The  Scripture  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the  heatlien 
through  faith,"  than  which  nothing  can  be  stronger  as  to  the 
inspired  apostle's  estimate  of  it.  Nor  is  this  all  The  teaching 
of  Genesis,  and  promises  there  made  and  confirmed  (Gen.  xii. 
xxii.),  and  the  history  of  Moimt  Sinai,  are  taken  in  their  order 


as  the  basis  of  God's  ways.  A  promise  made  unconditionally 
could  not  be  disannulled  or  modified  by  additions  430  years 
after,  and  all  this  identified  with  its  fulfilment  in  Christ  in  due 
time.  The  place  the  law  holds  in  God's  ways,  and  the  epochs  of 
it,  are  made  the  basis  of  his  argument  and  of  the  true  character 
of  Christianity.  The  promise  was  what  God  gave,  Christ  was  its 
fulfilment,  the  law  came  in  between,  430  years  after  the  promise, 
added  because  of  transgTessions,  till  the  Seed  should  come  to 
whom  the  promise  was  made.  "What  for  the  rationalist  is  an  un- 
certain compilation  of  uncertain  fragments,  the  development  of 
national  life,  is  for  the  inspired  apostle  the  orderly  revelation,  as 
it  is  given  in  our  Bibles,  of  God's  ways,  His  own  revelation  of 
them  historically,  so  as  to  form  the  basis  of  the  true  character 
of  Christianity  which  was  in  question  among  the  Galatians. 
The  accounts  of  Hau-ar  and  Sarah  are  for  him  sure  ground  to 
stand  upon.  Nor  has  he  ever  any  other  thought.  If  he  answers 
to  King  Agrippa,  he  spoke  none  other  things  than  those  which  the 
prophets,  and  Moses  in  the  law,  did  say  should  come.  Finally, 
we  find  in  2  Tim.  iii.  a  formal  testimony  to  the  holy  Scriptures, 
when  the  church  should  have  the  form  of  godliness  and  deny  the 
power,  with  the  direct  declaration  that  all  Scripture  w^as  given 
by  inspiration  of  God. 

John  gives  us  the  formal  testimony  that  the  law  was  given 
by  Moses  ;  and  John  the  Baptist's  declaration,  quoting  the  latter 
part  of  Isaiah  as  being  of  him,  and  liimself  the  fulfihncnt  of  it, 
as  a  sure  prophecy,  and  of  God.  ]\Ioses  in  the  law  and  the 
prophets  did  write  is  recorded  as  a  known  and  received  truth  ; 
the  Psalms  equally  so.  In  chap.  ii.  "the  zeal  of  thine  house 
hath  eaten  me  up."  IMoses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilder- 
ness (chap,  iii.)  What  Moses  gave  (the  inanna)  was  not  the 
true  bread  from  heaven ;  where  Exodus  and  the  Psalms  are 
alike  authenticated.  "  It  is  written  in  the  prophets "  is  suf- 
ficient for  the  Lord  Himself  ;  not  a  bone  was  broken,  that 
the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled  ;  and  His  side  was  pierced  that 

HAVE  WE  A  REVEL  AT  10  X  EROM  GOD?  H] 

another  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled,  quoting  Isaiah.  They 
shall  look  ou   Him  whom  they  have  pierced  (chap,  x.ix.) 

Peter  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  rests  ou  the  authf^rity  of  Joel, 
of  David  in  Psalm  xvi.  (Acts  ii.)  Moses  it  was  who  promised 
the  prophet  like  himself.  Yea,  Samuel  and  all  the  prophets  had 
spoken  of  those  days,  and  all  the  holy  prophets  are  "brought  in  de- 
claring the  future  blessing  that  was  to  come,  the  heavens  receiving 
Jesus  till  then.  The  second  Psalm  was  being  fulfilled  (iv.  25). 
Peter  formally  declares  that  the  Spirit  of  Christ  was  in  the 
prophets,  who  studied  their  own  prophecies  to  know  what  He 
(1  Peter  i.  11)  did  signify  in  them,  and  quotes  Isaiah,  what  is 
contamed  in  the  Scripture,  as  of  sure  authority,  warranting  what 
was  now  going  ou  (ii.  6).  He  accepts  the  account  of  the  flood  in 
Noah  (iii.  20).  The  Gospel  of  Matthew  [which  specially  presents 
Christ  to  us  as  the  Messiah  of  the  promises,  Emmanuel,  and,  on 
His  rejection,  the  substitution  of  the  kingdom  in  mystery  (xiii.), 
the  church  (xvi.),  the  kingdom  in  glory  (xvii.)]  bases,  I  may  say, 
all  its  statements  on  the  testimonies  of  the  old  prophets.  Christ 
is  Son  of  David,  Son  of  Abraham.  So  numerous  are  the  quota- 
tions that  I  can  "only  notice  the  formal  character  of  them,  and 
one  or  two  in  particular.  Tlie  formal  character  is  spoken  of  (i/to) 
the  Lord  by  (o/a)  the  prophet,  a  definite  assertion  of  their  true 
character.  He  quotes  some  as  giving  the  events  happening,  ha. 
"  in  order  that "  the  prophecy  might  be  fulfilled,  S-ru;  "  so  that " 
there  was  a  fulfilment,  ron  "  then  "  when  it  is  only  a  case  in 
point.     The  latter  part  of  Isaiah  is  "  Esaias  the  prophet," 

I  need  hardly  quote  more  from  the  writers  of  the  Xew 
Testament,  besides  a  multitude  of  allusions  in  those  I  have  re- 
ferred to,  to  show  that  Christ  and  the  apostles  accepted  the  Bible 
as  we  have  it  (I  mean  the  collection  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  a  whole)  as  of  divine  authority,  as  the  word  of 
God,  inspired,  and  of  absolute  authority  with  them.  It  is  that 
by  which  the  Lord  overcame  Satan,  to  which  Satan  resorted  to 
cover   his  guile.     Man   had    to    live    by  every    tcord  which 


proceeded  out  of  the  mouth  of  God}  Such  is  Scripture  to  the 
believer  hj  its  own  intrinsic  authority,  and  the  words  of  Christ 
and  the  apostles  carry  an  evidence  which  no  cavils  of  infidelity 
can  shake,  while  they  call  themselves  Christians ;  and  the 
authority  of  Christ  Himself  and  of  the  apostles  weighs  more  than 
tlie  speculations  of  men,  based  by  each  on  some  new  fancy  of 
his  own,  and,  though  helping  on  infidelity  as  it  passed  and  the 
ruin  of  man's  hopes,  passing  away  with  the  influence  of  the 
mental  energy  which  created  it.  I  only,  in  addition,  beg  my 
reader  to  remark  that  these  quotations  authenticate  the  writings 
and  the  writers,  and  the  writings  as  being  those  of  the  writer 
whose  name  they  bear,  as  well  as  the  truths  contained  in  them 
as  given  of  God,  and  that  with  the  authority  of  Christ  and  His 

We  are  left  then,  according  to  this  system,  with  no  cer- 
tainty at  all  as  to  any  truth  of  God.  Objectors  have  subtilly 
spoken  of  authority,  but  there  is  no  certainty.  Xot  even  the 
statements  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  the  apostles  give  us  any ; 
and,  if  not,  these  are  uncertain  and  unauthoritative  too,  and  we 
are  left  to  the  dark  mists  of  infidelity  and  a  world  which  has 
historically  proved  itself  wicked  and  blind,  without  one  sure  com- 
munication from  God. 

Before  I  turn  to  the  more  interesting  and  instructive 
proofs  of  the  unity  of  the  Old  Testament  from  internal  proofs, 
it  may  be  well  to  consider  for  a  little  the  article  which  gives 
occasion  to  these  comments.  It  seems  to  me  slovenly  both  in 
substance  and  in  form.  On  the  latter  I  need  not  dwell ;  but 
when  a  writer  tells  us  of  Jesus  speaking  of  the  new  dispensa- 
tion founded  on  His  death  as  a  New  Covenant,  citing  2  Cor.  xi. 
25,  I  am  justified  in  saying  it  is  slovenly,  I  thought  this 
niiglit  be  a  misprint,  but  I  really  cannot  make  out  to  what  he 

^  This,  as  all  the  Lord's  replies  to  Satan,  is  quoted  from  Deuteronomy,  as  the 
word  of  God — words  proceeding  out  of  God's  mouth,  sufficieut  for  llira,  and 
sufficient  to  leave  Satan  without  reply. 


refers.  Xo  scripture  ever  calls  this  dispensation  a  Xew  or  the, 
New  Covenant,  though  we  get  all  the  blessings  of  it  spiritu- 
ally. Christ's  blood  in  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
called  the  blood  of  the  New  Covenant ;  and  Paul  (2  Cor.  iii.) 
says  he  was  a  minister  of  the  New  Covenant,  not  of  the  letter 
but  of  the  Spirit.  But  this  does  not  caU  for  protracted  notice. 
But,  though  the  writer  speaks  of  Genesis,  liaviug  lost  sight  of 
the  divinely-given  use  of  the  Old  Testament,  all  resolves  itself 
into  the  development  of  a  little  nation,  with  a  national  God, 
and  more  or  less  priestly  superstition.  But  in  Genesis  we 
have  the  history  of  the  world  from  the  creation  to  Israel's 
going  down  into  Egypt  and  his  death,  with  all  the  great  prin- 
ciples of  God's  relationship  with  man,  except  what  are  pro- 
perly dispensational.  There  is  not  the  law,  nor  the  church, 
the  two  great  subjects  of  God's  ways  afterwards  for  heaven 
and  on  earth.  But,  leaving  them  aside,  you  have  all  the 
great  root-principles  of  man's  state  and  relationship  with 
God,  and  in  promise  the  cradle  of  all  his  hopes.  Of  these  we 
must  expect  no  trace  in  these  heartless  systems,  but  Elohistic 
and  Jehovistic  fragments,  and  interweaving  by  a  compiler,  one 
referring  to  the  priestly  party  in  Israel,  the  other  not ;  why  put 
together  by  the  compilers,  we  are  not  told ;  but  of  the  state 
and  interests  of  man,  or  the  glory  and  purposes  of  God — though 
both,  as  we  have  seen,  are  fully  wrought  into  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  the  basis  of  eternal  truth — no  hint,  no  trace.  Man 
fallen,  a  world  judged  (a  story  to  which  Christ  sets  His  seal), 
Christ  promised,  Israel's  hopes  founded,  and  their  apostasy,  and 
God's  deliverance  of  them  foretold,  all  in  vain.  Grace  and 
judgment,  and  all  God's  ways,  Christ  promised  and  come,  and 
unfolding  them,  as  did  also  the  apostles,  in  all  their  momentous 
bearings,  must  give  way  to  Ewald's  "  Geschichte,"  and  llx.  New- 
man's "  Hebrew  Monarchy,"  and  Baur,  and  Hupfeld,  and  Mr. 
Smith,  in  speculations  which  only  show  they  can  see  nothing 
where   God   has,  in  its   germ,  laid  down  everytliing  that  casts 


]  ight  upon  a  ruined  world  (for  a  ruined  world  it  is),  and  God's 
dealings  in  grace  with  it. 

But  it  is  only  fair  to  show  that  the  statements  are  slovenly : 
perhaps  flimsy  or  superficial  would  be  a  more  correct  word. 
The  theory  is  that  there  was  a  gradual  development  of  the  law. 
From  Joshua  to  Samuel  national  feeling  was  much  weaker 
than  tribal  jealousy.  That  there  was  a  general  dissolution, 
through  idolatry  and  all  seeking  their  own,  is  true,  and 
Ephraim  claimed  a  place  hardly  OAvned  by  others ;  but  this 
broke  out  far  worse  afterwards  even  in  David's  time,  and  after 
Solomon's  death  divided  the  kingdom. 

During  the  time  of  the  Judges,  we  are  told,  the  sanctuary 
and  priesthood  of  the  ark  was  the  chief  centre  of  mono- 
theism. Of  course  it  was  at  all  times ;  there  could  be  no  other. 
There  was  no  mercy-seat  but  there,  there  could  be  no  day  of 
atonement  without  it.  Samuel,  it  is  said,  was  by  education  a 
priest;  but  it  was  as  prophet,  not  as  priest,  he  accomplished  his 
work.  He  never  was  a  priest,  and  could  execute  no  priestly 
office.  Afterwards,  to  show  the  progress,  we  are  told  that  he 
fully  sanctioned  Exodus  xx.  24,  and  did  not  act  on  Deut. 
xxxiii.  19.  All  this  is  utter  neglect  of  both  the  letter  and 
the  mind  of  Scripture.  There  was  no  sanctuary  at  all  during 
Samuel's  activity.  A  tremendous  judgment  had  fallen  on 
Israel.  Jeremiah  refers  to  it  (vii.)  as  prognostic  of  what  would 
happen  to  Jerusalem.  There  are  three  offices,  as  is  often 
said,  through  wliich  God  has  to  do  with  His  people — propliet, 
priest,  and  king.  The  priesthood,  which  was  set  to  guide 
even  Joshua,  had  utterly  failed.  Eli  died  broken-hearted,  his 
two  sons  slain,  and  the  ark  of  God  taken.  There  was  no 
restoration  of  the  ark  till  the  king  restored  it,  though  God 
sustained  His  own  glory.  The  link  of  the  people  with  God 
on  the  ground  of  tlieir  own  responsibility,  with  priestly  medi- 
ation, was  entirely  broken  :  no  day  of  atonement,  it  could  not 
be;  Ichabod  was  written  on  it  all.     0 od  had  " delivered  His 


glory  into  captivity;  His  streugth  into  the  enemies'  hand." 
But  a  prophet  is  sovereign  interference,  and  God  could  not  be 
debarred  that,  and  He  had  prepared  Samuel  as  He  had  pre- 
pared Moses.  Samuel  maintained  the  worship  of  Jehovah 
as  an  acknowledged  prophet  and  judge.  But  as  a  system  the 
people  failed  here  too,  and  demanded  a  king ;  and  God  gave 
them  a  king  in  His  anger,  and  took  him  away  in  His  wrath. 
Then  God  by  Samuel  called  David,  who  became  king,  and 
brought  back  the  ark,  but  to  Zion,  not  to  the  tabernacle ;  it 
was  no  longer  at  Shiloh,  but  at  Gibeon,  without  any  ark  or 
mercy-seat  at  all ;  it  was  not  owned  by  David.  Solomon  went 
there ;  but  David,  guided  as  he  was  and  taught  of  God,  placed 
singers  at  the  ark  to  say  "  His  mercy  endureth  for  ever." 

In  spite  of  all  their  sins,  power  in  gi-ace  had  wrouglit  restora- 
tion. The  record  is  repeated  in  Nehemiah  of  the  same  faithful- 
ness of  God,  and  in  the  closing  psalms,  predictive  of  Israel's  future 
blessing,  prepared  to  be  sung  with  greater  testimony  to  its  truth 
than  ever,  after  Israel  has  received  at  the  hand  of  the  Lord 
double  for  all  her  sins  (Isa.  xl.  2),  and  that  in  the  kingly  power 
of  Christ  in  grace.  Hence,  in  Hebrews  Zion  is  contrasted  with 
Sinai  the  place  of  the  law  and  the  Old  Covenant.  Such  is  the 
scriptural  statement  of  the  matter.  The  thoughts  about  Samuel 
and  the  difference  of  the  altars  overlooks  the  whole  real  history  of 
Israel  at  that  time.  Samuel  acted  with  prophetic  authority  when 
there  was  no  ark,  and  the  whole  priestly  order  was  judicially  set 
aside.  The  proi)hets  did  refer  to  the  moral  state  of  the  people 
largely,  but  prophesied  of  a  Messiah  to  come  and  grace  for 
Israel  and  a  New  Covenant.  But  God  owned  no  covenant 
as  the  Old  Covenant,  but  what  He  had  made  with  Israel  in 
coming  out  of  Egypt.      This  is  what  is  expressly  referred  to. 

There  is  no  thought  of  a  development  of  religious  ordi- 
nances from  a  relatively  crude  and  imperfect  state.  The 
prophets  recalled  Israel  to  a  well-known  system,  but  it  will 
be   found  that  the  blessings  and  judgments  in  Judah,  which 


still  owned  tlie  temple  and  Jehovah,  were  invariaUij  de- 
pendent on.  the  conduct  of  the  king,  under  whom  they  were 
placed,  and  on  whose  conduct  blessing  or  the  contrary  de- 
pended. We  are  told,  indeed,  that  the  proof  of  the  deve- 
lopment view  "  cannot  here  be  reproduced."  It  is  a  pity : 
still  the  author  does  his  best.  I  only  remark  that,  while 
there  was  progressive  prophetic  light,  the  kings  ordered  the  de- 
tails of  priestly  service,  as  David  did,  and  was  inspired  for  it. 
As  a  system,  the  headship  of  the  priest  was  given  up  in  Shiloh, 
though  not  their  exclusive  service.  We  are  told  that  the  pro- 
phets, when  they  failed  to  produce  immediate  reformation,  began 
from  the  eighth  century,  if  not  earlier,  to  commit  their  oracles 
to  writing.  Eeformation  of  what?  Who  were  these  prophets? 
The  eighth  century  was  Hezekiah's  reign.  That  was  about  400 
years  from  Samuel.  There  were  from  time  to  time  prophets 
who  gave  warnings  ;  but  what  reformation  were  they  attempt- 
ing? All  this  is  fable.  David  set  up  the  new  system,  and 
"  Solomon  built  Him  a  house."  Ten  tribes  went  off  because  of 
the  folly  of  the  king,  had  no  priests  but  false  ones,  and  after- 
wards tw^o  most  remarkable  prophets,  who  %vrought  miracles 
authenticating  their  mission ;  which  the  Jewish  ones  did  not, 
because  Jehovah  was  publicly  owmed,  and  the  whole  system 
they  recalled  Israel  to  was  fixed  long  ago,  and  owned  by  the 
people.  The  reforming  prophets  from  Samuel  to  the  eighth 
century  is  a  fancy  of  the  writer's.  Tlie  former  prophets, 
Samuel,  and  Kings,  give  us  the  history,  and  that  was  what 
God  meant  them  to  do.  That  they  were  the  chroniclers  is 
often  repeated  and  easily  shown. 

But  to  return  to  inquire  for  the  proofs  of  the  development 
of  crude  ordinances  : — if  I  read  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  they  may 
be  wise  or  not,  but  they  are  not  crude,  but  elaborately  detailed, 
and,  if  true  at  all,  framed  according  to  a  pattern  shown  on  the 
moimt.  If  they  were  not  established  by  Moses,  the  whole  his- 
tory is  a  fable,  utterly  false  from  beginning  to  end ;  for  "  Jehovah 


said  unto  Moses "  is  the  emphatic  authority,  save  a  few  to 
Aaron,  where  it  was  special  priestly  service  in  what  was  estab- 
lished ;  and,  I  ask,  was  the  pattern  shown  on  the  mount  a  crude, 
thing,  to  be  developed  by  Moses  ?  But  the  proofs. — An  altar 
of  earth  or  unhewn  stone  is  commanded,  if  they  made  one 
(Exod.  XX.),  and  this  Samuel  did  when  there  was  no  priestly  ser- 
vice and  Shiloh  was  judged,  and  so  did  Elijah  when  Israel  had 
left  the  temple.  It  guarded  against  idolatrous  imagery.  But 
we  are  reminded  that  God  was  to  put  His  name  in  one  place, 
according  to  Deuteronomy,  and  so  He  did,  and  faithful  kings 
were  constantly  destroying  the  high  places  (for  planting  trees 
was  equally  forbidden),  thinldng  to  bring  back  things  to  order, 
not  to  make  progress  or  develop.  In  Exod.  xx.  He  speaks  of 
recording  His  name  in  a  place,  and  there  He  would  meet  them 
— blessed  promise  !  But  the  next  thing  in  the  same  book  is 
the  history  of  the  tabernacle,  to  which  in  the  wilderness  they 
were  bound  to  bring  every  animal  they  killed  in  the  camp  or 
out  of  the  camp,  under  pain  of  death ;  and  in  the  same  Jeho- 
vistic  account,  if  you  wiU  have  it  so,  they  are  to  appear  before 
Jehovah  at  the  three  great  feasts.  Talking  of  development  as 
to  this  is  really  nonsense ;  the  earthen  altar  is  the  first  ordi- 
nance given — a  development,  I  suppose,  on  the  crude  details  of 
the  tabernacle  given  after,  and  then  we  jump  to  Samuel ! 

The  quotation  of  Deut.  xxxiii.  is  a  prophecy  of  the  last  days 
of  Israel  in  the  blessing  of  Mose&,  the  man  of  God.  Even  so 
they  call  the  people  to  the  mountain.  What  mountain  ?  There 
they  shall  offer  sacrifices  of  righteousness.  Why  should  it  not 
be  the  mountain  of  Jehovah's  house  established  on  the  top  of 
the  mountains  ?  This  is  a  prophecy  for  the  last  days  too.  In 
Deut.  we  have  the  three  great  feasts,  and  their  going  to  the 
appointed  place  obligatory,  and  images  and  groves  forbidden, 
— all  Jehovistic.  The  full  directions  as  to  going  to  the  place 
where  God  had  set  His  name  are  in  Deut.  xii.,  when  the  Lord 
should  have  given  them  rest,  and  what  they  might  eat  at  home 


and  wliat  not.  But  this  had  been  even  more  strictly  imposecl 
ill  the  camp,  because  in  the  land  the  distance  might  be  too 
great,  an  altar  of  brass  being  made,  in  the  same  book  and  place, 
according  to  the  pattern  shown  on  the  mount. 

Deuteronomy  is  a  peculiar  book,  penned  evidently  for  the  con- 
fusion that  might  be  found  in  Israel  when  scattered  about  the 
land.  The  Levites  hold  a  much  more  considerable  place,  and  Vat 
people.  The  Levites  are  not  priests,  as  the  article  says,  but  the 
priests  are  very  rarely  mentioned,  and  provision  made  for  this 
state  of  things,  yet  anything  but  development  of  ordinances. 
It  is  for  the  land  entirely.  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  with  very 
rare  exceptions,  exclusively  for  the  wilderness.  Probably, 
from  what  Amos  and  Stephen  say,  not  one  sacrifice,  un- 
less the  regular  daily  ones,  was  ever  offered.  The  history, 
though  doubtless  their  duty  then,  is  one  of  types,  and  written 
for  our  instruction,  on  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are  come ; 
and  though  this  be  said  of  their  history,  yet  the  types  of  the 
sacrifices  and  the  like  are  precious  to  every  one  that  knows 
Christ.  He  knows  Christ,  our  Passover,  is  sacrificed  for  us ; 
he  knows  what  Pentecost  prefigured ;  and,  if  intelligent  in  the 
things  of  God,  what  Tabernacles  are  too,  not  yet  fulfilled ;  but 
to  these  things  I  will  revert.  Thank  God,  they  were  perfect 
at  first,  and  only  properly  so  then.  All  was  made  according  to 
the  pattern  shown  to  Moses  on  the  mount.  Rationalists  may 
despise  the  New  Testament  too,  and  despise  Alexandrian 
Epistles  to  the  Hebrews ;  but  we  have  not  yet  learnt  that  the 
most  wonderful  display  of  grace,  holiness,  and  wisdom,  wrougiit 
into  a  whole  that  none  can  rend,  is  only  an  imposture. 

But  the  other  proofs  ? — Ezekiel's  temple.  This  is  instruction 
for  the  restoration,  not  the  historical  one.  Then,  instead  of 
Jehovah-Shammah  and  the  Prince,  they  were  miserable  cap- 
tives to  the  kings  God  had  set  over  them  in  His  anger;  at  least 
so  Nehemiah  thought.  It  is  prophecy  for  a  time  after  Gog  is 
destroyed,  so  that  all  the  nations  may  know  that  Jehovah  is 


Israel's  God,  who  had  led  tKem  into  captivity,  and  bronght 
them  out,  and  left  none  of  them  there  at  all.  For  there  will  be 
such  days,  let  rationalists  think  what  they  like.  It  is  a  pro- 
phecy ;  in  nothing  an  historic  proof  of  any  development  made 
after  the  Exodus.  When  Ezra  fixed  the  legal  state  of  Israel, 
he  did  not  fix  Ezekiel's  temple.  This  is  really  child's-play, 
fit  only  for  rationalists.  This,  the  writer  tells  us,  is  his  "  clearest 
proof,"  unless  we  may  suppose  the  unreproduced  ones  may  be. 

But  there  remains  yet  one  as  to  which  the  writer  makes  a 
pretty  round  assertion — Josiah's  book.  "  The  legislation  of  this 
book  does  not  correspond  with  the  old  law  in  Exodus,  but  with 
the  book  of  Deuteronomy."  So  it  is  stated.  I  must  suppose  he 
refers  to  there  being  one  place  of  worship ;  but  this  was  more 
strictly  fixed  in  Exodus  when  the  tabernacle  was  set  up,  that 
is  at  fii'st,  than  in  Deuteronomy,  only  one  for  the  land,  the 
other  for  the  wilderness.  But  of  the  contents  of  the  book  there 
is  not  one  word  in  the  Kings.  I  do  not  exclude  from  what 
Josiah  says  Deuteronomy  more  than  Exodus  or  Leviticus,  in 
which  last  we  have  the  most  terrible  threatenings  of  all  (see 
xxvi.)  Josiah  heard  the  words  of  the  book  of  the  law,  and 
his  heart  was  tender,  but  he  had  no  idea  of  a  new  book  or  a 
new  law.  It  was  the  book  of  the  law  that  was  found.  In  the 
long  reign  of  Mauasseh  it  had  been  utterly  neglected ;  but  he 
speaks  of  it  as  no  new  thing.  "  Great  is  the  wrath  of  Jeliovah 
that  is  kindled  against  us,  because  our  fathers  have  not  heark- 
ened unto  the  words  of  this  book." 

I  have  now  completed  the  consideration  of  the  produced 
proofs  of  the  development  of  crude  ordinances  under  the 
law.  Eebellion,  idolatry,  desertion  of  Jehovah,  gracious  deal- 
ings on  His  part,  and  "  hewing  "  them  by  prophets  there  was, 
and  growing  light  as  to  Messiah ;  a  new  order  of  the  details 
of  service  as  to  song  and  temple  service  by  inspiration  through 
David ;  a  jjrovision  for  walk  in  the  land  and  failure  in  Deuteron- 
omy ;  but  of  development  from  the  pattern  shown  in  the  mount 


not  a  trace.  The  writer  tells  us  Ezra  came  with  "  the  bohJk 
of  tlie  law  of  Moses."  But,  according  to  him,  it  was  not  the 
law  of  Moses ;  but,  if  the  Pentateuch  be  not  all  false,  an  im- 
proved code  on  what  God  had  established  by  Moses.  How  "  a 
nation  which  had  attained  a  high  degree  of  literary  culture  " 
was  to  be  enlightened  "in  spite  of  the  crass  and  unspiritual 
character  of  the  mass  of  the  people,"  I  may  leave  to  rationalists 
to  explain.  It  is  grammatico-historical  exegesis,  I  suppose. 
Was  I  unjust  in  saying  the  article  was  superficial  in  form  and 
substance  ? 

I  refer  to  one  passage  more.  He  alleges  1  Sam.  viii.  7  as 
contradicting  Deut.  xvii.  But  how  God  in  anger,  as  Himself 
rejected  and  giving  the  people  their  own  way,  and  telling  them 
how  it  would  turn  out,  is  a  contradiction  of  a  statement  of  how 
it  ought  to  be  done,  is  beyond  me.  If  my  reader  is  not  weary 
of  such  futilities,  I  am ;  they  are  cliaracteristically  rationalist.* 

I  may  turn  to  Astruc's  and  his  followers*  Jehovistic  and  Elo- 
histic  documents.  According  to  Mr.  F.  Xewman,  they  can  be 
separated  by  mechanical  means — a  pair  of  scissors,  for  instance. 
With  this  I  agree.  It  is  an  apposite  statement.  They  can  be 
separated  with  nothing  else.  But  are  these  learned  men  in- 
capable of  making  a  difference  between   God  abstractedly  as  a 

^  The  allegation,  that  "there  are  six  laws  as  to  the  passover,  -which,  if  not 
really  discordant,  are  at  least  so  divergent  in  form  and  conception  that  tliey 
cannot  be  all  from  tlie  same  pen,"  is  another  of  these  careless  assertions  without 
a  shadow  of  foundation.  In  the  first  place,  they  are  not  all  of  the  passover,  but 
some  of  unleavened  bread,  which,  though  connected,  was  a  different  feast,  and 
the  difference  morally  important ;  and  in  two  cases  specially  connected  with  the 
consecration  of  the  first-born.  As  to  the  rest,  we  have  the  historical  account  in 
Exodus,  and  reference  to  it  when  the  three  great  feasts  are  particularly  directed  to 
be  kept.  How  these  are  divergent,  my  reader  must  find  out ;  I  cannot.  It  will 
be  found  that  in  Ex.  xiii.  there  is  a  special  additional  direction  as  to  the  first- 
bom  and  unleavened  bread,  and  no  law  as  to  the  passover  at  all.  So  in  ch.  xxxiv. 
18.  Moreover,  they  are  all  Jehovistic  ;  so  that  the  Jehovistic  and  Elohistic  docu- 
ments, as  of  two  delinite  authors,  come  to  nothing.  But  the  statement  is  ridi- 
culous, a  i^roof  of  the  folly  and  levity  of  all  tliut  is  alleged. 


supreme  and  self-existing  Being,  and  a  relative  name  in  which 
He  makes  Himself  known  to  men,  so  as  to  be  in  special  rela- 
tion with  tliem  ?  My  father  is  a  man ;  but,  besides  that,  he  is 
my  father  without  ceasing  to  be  a  man.  Supposing  I  took 
the  New  Testament  and  said  there  must  be  two  documents 
which  scissors  could  separate  because  He  is  called  God  and 
Father  ?  Bu.t  Father  is  as  much  given  as  a  relative  name  in 
the  New  Testament  as  Jehovah  in  the  Old. 

Abstractedly  I  have  no  objection  to  more  documents  than 
one,  provided  I  have  the  result  from  "  the  mouth  of  God ; " 
but  in  their  reasonings  after  Astruc  I  see  no  proof  of  any- 
thing else  than  the  absence  of  moral  or  any  sense,  and  that, 
being  empty  in  mind  of  Divine  truth,  this  fancy  of  Astruc's 
was  one  they  could  spin  cobwebs  out  of.  What  fly  but  a 
rationalist  would  be  caught  by  Hupfeld's  third  author  of 
the  northern  party,  and  Mr.  Smith's  curious  remark  on  it — 
"  His  literary  individuality  is,  in  truth,  sharply  marked,  though 
the  limits  of  his  contributions  to  the  Pentateuch  are  ob- 
scure "  ?  That  is  strange !  "  literary  individuality  sharply 
marked,  but  the  limits  of  the  contributions  obscure  :  "  their 
character  very  sharply  marked,  but  obscure  where  they  begin 
and  end.      Wlio  will  explain  that  for  me  ? 

But  how  does  Scripture  present  the  subject  ?  God  is  God, 
but  God  has  entered  into  relationship  with  men.  These  rela- 
tionships are  fourfold  in  Scripture,  all  referring  to  God  ab- 
stractedly as  such  :  El  Shaddai  (God  Almighty)  ;  Jehovah  (un- 
happily translated  in  English  Lord  in  capitals,  as  a  rule  ;  better 
in  French,  I'Eternel) ;  Father,  which,  save  in  mere  figures,  is  en- 
tirely a  New  Testament  name ;  and  Elion,  Most  High,  which, 
while  revealed  in  promise,  is  God's  millennial  name,  will  be  dis- 
played as  possessor  of  heaven  and  earth,  all  antagonistic  power 
being  set  aside.  And  these  are  clearl)"-  thus  set  forth  in  Scrip- 
ture, though  the  last  be  less  clearly,  as  being  yet  future. 

The  two  first  are  expressly  distinguished.      Thus  Exodus 


vi.  2,  3  :  "  And  Elohim  said  unto  Moses,  I  am  Jehovah ;  and  I 
appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob  by  the 
name  of  El  Shaddai,  but  by  my  name  Jehovah  was  I  not 
known  to  them."  Xot  that  He  was  not  Jehovah,  but  He  did 
not  give  Himself  that  name  in  His  ways  with  them.  See 
Gen.  xvii.,  xxviii.,  and  xxxii.  With  Israel  He  was  then 
Jehovah,  as  the  great  question  was  settled  on  Mount  Carmel ; 
"  Jehovah,  He  is  Elohim." 

With  Christians,  the  Son  Himself  being  come,  the  Father  is 
revealed,  as  the  Lord  Himself  says  (John  xvii.) :  "  I  have  mani- 
fested tliy  name  to  the  men  thou  gavcst  me  out  of  the  world. 

....  Holy  Father,  keep  through  thine  own  name And 

I  have  declared  unto  them  thy  name,  and  will  declare  it,  that 
the  love  wherewith  thou  hast  loved  me  may  be  in  them,  and  I 
in  them."  So  Paul :  "  When  the  fulness  of  time  was  come,  God 
sent  forth  His  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  imder  the  law,  to 
redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive 
the  adoption  of  sons ;  and  because  ye  are  sons,  God  hath  sent 
forth  the  Spirit  of  His  Son  into  your  hearts,  crying,  Abba, 
Father."  Blessed  privilege  !  peculiar  to  those  to  whom,  through 
faith  in  Jesus,  He  has  given  the  title  to  take  the  place  of  sons, 
for  we  are  all  the  sons  of  God  through  faith  in  Christ  Jesus. 

The  first  time  we  get  Most  High  is  when  Melchisedek  comes 
out  to  meet  Abraham.  Not  that  God  was  not  ever  the  ]\Iost 
High,  but  He  had  .  not  taken  it  as  a  revealed  name  with  His 
people  on  the  earth.  Here  was  a  greater  than  Abraham,  who 
blesses  him  after  liis  full  victory  over  his  enemies.  And  God 
takes  this  title,  not  in  connection  with  Abraham  (that  was  El 
Shaddai,  though  he  owns  Him  as  such  and  as  Jehovah  too), 
but  with  the  mysterious  personage,  figure  clearly,  according 
to  Psalm  ex.,  as  developed  also  in  the  Hebrews — of  Christ, 
King  of  Pighteousness,  King  of  Peace,  now  sitting  on  the  right 
hand  of  tlie  Father,  on  the  Father's  throne  (Pev.  iii.  21), 
not  yet   on   His   own,  a  priest  after  the  similitude  of  Aaron    . 


now,  though  not  after  his  order,  but  Avho  shall  come  forth  at 
the  sounding  of  the  seventh  trumpet,  when  Jehovah-Elohim- 
Shaddai  shall  take  to  Him  His  great  power  and  reign ;  the 
Ancient  of  days  who  sits  on  His  throne,  but  the  Ancient 
of  Days  who  comes  (Dan,  vii.),  whom  the  King  of  kings 
and  Lord  of  lords,  the  blessed  and  only  Potentate,  shall 
show,  but  who  is  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords  ;  when, 
after  the  last  confederacy  against  Israel  (Ps.  Ixxxiii.),  through 
the  judgment  of  the  confederate  enemies,  men  shall  know 
that  He  whose  name  alone  is  Jehovah  is  the  I\Iost  High, 
Elion,  in  all  the  earth,  as  the  punishment  of  the  host  of 
the  high  ones  on  high  shall  have  shown  Him  Most  High 
there  (Isa.  xxiv.  21),  the  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  man,  to 
whom  all  judgment  is  committed.  So  when  the  Gentile  power, 
which  ~^od  set  up  when  He  took  His  throne  from  Jerusalem, 
Nebvichadnezzar,  comes  to  his  senses,  he  writes,  "  I  Nebuchad- 
nezzar lifted  up  my  eyes  unto  lieaven,  and  mine  understand- 
ing returned  unto  me,  and  I  blessed  the  Most  High,  and  I 
praised  and  honoured  Him  that  liveth  for  ever,  whose  dominion 
is  an  everlasting  dominion,  and  His  kingdom  from  generation  to 
generation  "  (Dan.  iv.  34).  I  do  not  quote  Dan.  vii.  for  Most 
High,  save  verse  25,  because  the  word  is  plural  and  means,  I 
doubt  not,  "the  high"  or  "heavenly  places."  In  verse  25, 
however,  the  beast  speaks  words,  against  Elion  bringing  in 
judgment  by  them.  But  the  kingdom  of  the  Son  of  man 
is  then  set  up.  The  little  stone  will  have  dashed  the  feet 
and  toes  of  the  image  to  pieces  in  judgment,  and  becomes 
then  a  great  mountain  which  fills  the  whole  earth  (Dan.  ii.) 

"Who  then  is  this  ]Most  High  ?  This  is  the  question  so  beauti- 
fully discussed  in  a  poetic  dialogue  in  Ps.  xci.  There  are  two 
great  subjects  in  Scripture  when  personal  reconciliation  to  God 
is  settled.  Sovereign  grace  puts  poor  sinners  in  the  same 
glory  as  the  Son  of  God,  that  He  may  be  the  first-born  among 
many  brethren,  which  is  not  our  subject  now, — displayed   in 


the  transfiguration.^  The  other  is  the  government  of  this 
world  (See  Dent,  xxxii.  8,  9),  of  which  the  Jews  are  the  centre, 
as  the  church  is  of  the  heavenly  glory  under  Christ.  Our  pre- 
sent subject  is  the  Old  Testament,  the  earthly  part.  Here  then 
Jehovah,  the  Jewish  name  of  Elohim,  is  in  question.  "V^^o 
then  is  the  Most  High  ?  He  who  has  this  secret  will  be 
blessed.  He  who  dwelleth  in  the  secret  place  of  the  Most 
Hig;h  shall  abide  under  the  shadow  of  Abraham's  God,  the 
Abjiighty.  "Who  shall  say  where  the  Most  High  is  to  be 
found  ?  Messiah  says,  I  will  take  Israel's  God  (Jehovah)  as 
the  Most  High ;  I  will  say  of  Jehovah,  He  is  my  refuge. 
Ver.  3-8  is  the  answer.  Then  Israel  speaks,  Because  Thou  hast 
made  the  Lord  (Jehovah)  which  is  my  refuge,  even  the  Most 
High,  Thy  habitation,  there  shall  no  evil  come  nigh  Thy  habita- 
tion. Ver.  10  13  continues  this.  This  is  the  passage  by  which 
Satan  sought  to  tempt  the  Lord  Jesus  to  try  Jehovah  if  He  would 
be  as  good  as  His  word,  acting  in  self-wiU  out  of  the  path  of 
obedience :  efforts  which  crumbled  to  nothing  in  impoteucy 
before  tlie  authority  of  that  word  which  rationalists  deny,  but 
which  the  Lord  trusted  and  authenticated  as  proceeding  out  of 
the  mouth  of  God.  In  verse  14  to  the  end,  Jehovah  declares 
His  mind,  closing  grandly  the  dialogue,  and  putting  His  seal  on 
Messiah's  confidence  in  Himself,  on  whom  He  had  set  His 
love  as  having  taken  the  form  of  a  servant.  Here  Jehovah, 
Israel's  God,  is  shown  to  be  the  Almighty  and  Most  High, 
in  the  latter  character  bringing  in  the  blessing  of  the  earth : 
Jehovah,  my  God,  even  the  most  High,  has  the  blessing 
promised  to  Abraham.  "  Father  "  is  of  course  left  out,  the  name 
which  belongs  to  the  heavenly  family  when  the  Jews  are  cast 
off  for  having  rejected  Jesus,  a  state  of  things  coming  in  be- 
tween tlie  end  of  the  sixty-nine  and  the  last  half  of  the  seventy 
weeks  of  Daniel,  "  the  time  of  Jacob's  trouble."  (See  Daniel  ix.) 
Hence,  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  Jehovah  ia 
1  Both  the  celestial  and  the  terrestrial  parts  are  revealed  in  Luke  ix. 


the  name  regularly  taken  up  by  the  writer,  whose  whole  calling 
was  by  the  revelation  of  it  (Exodue  vi.),  and  by  all  the  pro- 
phets of  the  nation  whose  God  He  was.  But  it  was  of  all 
importance  to  them  that  He  was  that  God  who  is  the  iTHX 
n^ns  "ilTN  "  I  am  that  I  am,"  God  ever  existing,  subsisting  in 
Himself  and  creating  all  else.  And  this  is  one  great  truth  of 
what  I  may  call  the  translation  of  the  name  in  the  Apocalypse  ; 
not  "  who  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  come,"  but  who  is  (0  uiv),  who 
was  the  God  known  of  old,  the  promiser  withal,  and  who  is  the 
coming  one  6  s^yj/xivog,  when  He  will  be  Ancient  of  days,  and 
Most  High,  possessor  of  heaven  and  earth,  and  His  name  known 
(even  that  Jehovah,  and  Jehovah  alone  is  so)  over  all  the  earth. 

Hence,  too,  it  was  all  important  that  this  same  Jehovah 
should  be  known  as  Abraham's  God  who  had,  and  first  had  (save 
Christ  prophetically)  the  unconditional  promise.  (See  the  his- 
toric basis  of  all  this  which  Joshua  xxiv.  gives  us.)  Even  Shem's 
race  had  fallen  into  idolatry  (of  which  there  is  no  trace  before 
the  flood),  and  Abraham's  own  family.  Then  God  calls  out  Abra- 
ham out  of  the  order  and  connection  He  Himself  had  formed, 
country,  kindred,  and  father's  house,  to  be  to  Himself,  to  a 
country  He  would  show  him.  Sovereign  grace  which  chose 
him,  the  calling  of  God,  and  the  promises  were  the  great  prin- 
ciples brought  out  when  the  world  was  not  only  wicked  before 
God,  but  had  put  demons  in  His  place.  The  revelation  of  tlie 
church  was  only  after  Pentecost :  but  Abraham  is  the  root  and 
starting-point  of  the  blessed  race.  Adam  was  the  head  of  a 
fallen  race;  individual  saints  we  have  from  Abel,  and  the  judg- 
ment of  wickedness  in  the  flood,  and  government  set  up  in 
Noah  to  restrain  it ;  but  in  Abraham  first  the  head  of  a  race 
that  belonged  to  God  in  the  earth,  be  it  according  to  the  flesh 
or  the  Spirit,  the  root  of  the  olive  tree  of  God  (Eom.  xi.) 

Many  are  the  important  lessons  connected  with  this,  but 
[  cannot  touch  on  them  now.  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel, 
was   the   God   of   Abraham,    of   Isaac,   and    of  Jacob.     This 



was  His  name  for  ever,  this  His  memorial  for  all  generations 
(Ex.  iii.  15).  God  as  God,  the  Being  who  is,  not  a  creature 
wlio  begins  (Ian,  not  y'mzai),  but  exists  in  Himself, —  the 
Almighty,  who  called  the  vessel  of  jDromise  without  condition, 
and  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel  under  whom  the  Jews  took 
the  promises  under  condition  of  obedience,^  must  be  identified. 
Hence,  wliile  it  was  of  all  importance  to  keep  God's  essential 
name  of  God,  and  God  self-existent  contrasted  with  every 
creature,  and  to  keep  this  essential  character  present  before 
their  minds,  it  was  equally  so  to  show  Jehovah  was  that  God, 
not  a  mere  country  god  as  those  of  the  heathen.  This,  and 
the  difference  of  promise  on  condition,  and  unconditional,  we 
shall  find  running  through  the  Old  Testament  from  the  Pen- 
tateuch  to  Nehemiah ;  ^  and  the  distinction  is  the  basis  of 
Paul's  reasoning  in  the  Xew  Testament. 

We  find  then,  when  it  was  what  God  as  God  did  or  was, 
it  is  God,  Elohim;  where  it  is  the  account  given  by  those 
who  knew  Jehovah,  it  is  Jehovah;  and  when  the  solemnity 

1  The  whole  doctrine  of  the  "  four  great  epistles  "  of  Paul,  particularly  of 
Galatians,  and  those  foundational  epistles,  is  based  on  this  difference  of  Abraham 
and  Sinai  respecting  Christ  the  title  to  promise. 

^  Thus,  in  Exod.  xxxii.  13,  Moses  appeals  to  God's  promise  without  condition, 
to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  ;  Solomon  for  the  temple,  and  the  blessing  of  Israel 
in  connection  with  it  does  not  go  beyond  Moses  and  the  Exodus  (1  Kings  viii.),  on 
which  judgment  was  pronounced  when  the  Lord  cursed  the  fig-tree,  and  in  fact  this 
was  all  lost  and  fina'lj'  under  that  covenant.  So  in  Lev.  xxvi. ,  where  Jehovah  goes 
through  all  His  judgments  as  governing  the  people  to  the  end,  He  goes  back,  not 
only  to  Moses,  but  to  the  original  unconditional  promises  to  Jacob  and  Israel  and 
Abraham.  Tliey  will  have  the  blessings  of  the  promises  under  Moses,  but  throuf  h 
God's  remembering  His  unconditional  covenant,  which  comes  first.  Nehemiah 
refers  only  to  Abraham  as  a  covenant,  though  He  speaks  of  their  deliverance  by 
means  of  Moses,  for  this  was  a  deliverance  by  grace.  We  have  only  to  read  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah  to  see  the  utter  folly  of  Jchovistic  and  Elohistic  accounts.  I  sup- 
pose Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were  not  compiling  tlieir  own  history  from  Jehovistic 
and  Elohistic  fragments.  The  reader  may  also  notice  another  title,  tlie  God  of 
heaven,  as  now  no  longer  sitting  between  the  cherubim,  a  distinction  which  will 
belli  hiui  in  understanding  the  book  of  Revelation  also  (see  Rev.  xi.  4,  13). 


of  the  name  of  God  as  such  is  to  be  added  to  God  known  in 
relationship,  it  is  Jehovah  Elohim ;  when  in  special  bearing  upon 
Israel,  it  is  Jehovah  thy  God,  or  our  God.  So  constantly  as  a  per- 
sonal address  in  Deuteronomy.  A  spiritual-minded  person  -will 
always  feel  the  difference  between  the  two.  It  may  be  the  mere 
state  of  feeling  sometimes  expressed  in  it ;  sometimes  it  is  of 
real  importance  when  God's  glory,  as  such,  is  concerned  in  it. 

An  analogous  difference  is  found  in  the  New  Testament.  Not 
only  is  it  said.  Come  out  from  the  world,  and  ye  shall  be  my  sons 
and  daughters,  saith  Jehovah  Shaddai ;  but  in  Hebrews,  where 
the  question  is  how  man  can  approach  God,  as  such,  we  never 
find  the  Father — it  is  always  God ;  nor  in  the  Eev.  (save  xiv., 
where  His  name  is  written  on  the  foreheads  of  the  special  rem- 
nant there  mentioned,  but  it  is  His  Father).  It  is  the  throne 
of  th€  government  of  the  world  which  is  in  question,  and  it  is 
Jehovah  Elohim  Shaddai,  Lord  God  Almighty,  as  in  iv.,  xi.,  xv. 

In  John's  wTitings,  while  as  to  what  concerns  the  nature 
of  God,  the  name  God  is  used — as  "  God  so  loved,"  "  God  is 
love,"  "  God  is  light " — and  the  same  as  regards  our  responsi- 
bility in  respect  of  it :  the  moment  the  Divine  action  in  grace 
is  spoken  of,  it  is  Father ;  thus,  chap,  iv.,  God  is  a  Spirit,  and 
they  that  worship  Him  must  Avorship  Him  in  spirit  and  in 
truth,  "  for  the  Father  seeketh  such  to  worship  Him."  This 
comes  out  in  a  striking  way  in  the  first  four  verses  of  1  John 
i.,  and  in  the  rest  of  the  chapter.  So  in  i.  18  of  the  Gospel, 
and  it  will  be  found  to  run  through  all  his  writings.  Sup- 
pose I  were  to  say,  Here  is  a  Patristic  and  a  Theistic  docu- 
ment, and  use  "  the  scissors "  to  make  the  difference  :  it 
would  prove  nothing  but  alienation  from  God  and  moral  in- 
capacity.    The  principle  is  just  the  same. 

In  the  Psalms  the  difference  of  Jehovah  and  Elohim  is  most 
marked.  In  the  first  book  it  is  always  Jehovah,  the  remnant 
is  in  Jerusalem,  covenant  blessings  not  lost.  In  xlii.  they  are 
confessedly    outside,    worship    in    Jerusalem    is    remembered. 


There  it  is  God.  So  in  Ixiii.  it  is  God  Himself.  In  Lxxxiv.  it  is 
the  tabernacles  of  Jehovah,  though  still  of  course  God  there. 
In  the  second  book  Messiah  having  been  brought  in,  in  xlv.  it 
passes  from  God  to  Jehovah  and  the  God  of  Jacob.  God 
Himself  having  interfered  in  their  favour,  and  deliverance 
having  come.  He  is  Jehovah  Elion  (Most  High)  and  a  great 
King  in  all  the  earth,  though  (xlviii.)  He  reigns  in  Zion. 

I  might  go  through  the  book  of  Psalms  (and  indeed  have 
done  it),  and  show  the  constant  fitness  of  the  names  used. 
There  the  truth  that  God  Himself  is  their  God,  Most  High, 
Jehovah,  is  fully  developed :  but  their  Father  would  not  be 
found  from  i.  to  cL,  nor  the  Spirit  of  adoption  which  uses  it. 
It  is  the  government  of  the  world,  and  that  as  Jehovah,  great 
in  Zion,  God  Himself,  their  (Israel's)  God.  But  these  instances 
must  suffice ;  the  attentive  reader,  waiting  on  the  Lord,  will 
readily",  on  reading  the  Psalms,  apprehend  the  force  of  the 
expressions.     To  make  two  writers  is  simj)ly  absurd. 

Mr.  Smith  tells  us  that  "in  a  large  part  of  the  Psalter  a  later 
hand  has  systematically  substituted  Elohim  for  Jehovah ; "  and 
the  proof  ?  Stat  'pro  ratione  vohmtas.  There  is  simply  none  :  a 
more  utter  incapacity  for  seizing  the  Divine  side  of  the  con- 
tents of  Divine  writings  I  never  saw  than  in  the  remarks  on 
the  Psalms.  The  structure  of  tlie  book,  even  as  plainly 
shown  in  its  contents,  and  the  different  subjects  of  the  five 
books  or  divisions  foimd  in  it,  there  is  not  a  glimpse  of, 
though  it  lies  really  on  tlie  surface  of  the  collection,  and  in- 
deed shows  a  Divine  hand  in  collecting  them.  But  this 
would  be  too  large  a  subject  to  enter  on  here. 

I  only  remark  that  to  get  rid  of  the  proof  of  the  absurdity 
of  the  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  scheme,  for  which  even  the 
"mechanical  means"  would  not  suffice  here,  he  boldly  asserts 
they  have  had  one  name  substituted  for  another,  without  an 
attempt  at  proof,  or  shadow  of  it.     They  are  not  "  reproduced." 

The   stupid   remark   as   to   Elihu,  borrowed  from  Mr.  F. 


Newman,  or  perhaps  by  him  too  from  "  some  learned  German," 
recalls  me  to  Job.  lu  the  most  perfect  way  Elihu  comes 
in,  when  the  friends  would  have  it  that  this  world  was  an 
adequate  proof  of  God's  moral  government,  which  Job  rightly 
denied,  though  his  heart  rose  up  against  God  too,  and  as  the 
interpreter,  one  among  a  thousand,  he  shows  there  is  a  disci- 
pline of  the  righteous,  blaming  the  friends,  yet  showing  how 
Job  was  wrong  too.  He  stands  in  a  mediatorial  character,  a 
kind  of  daysman,  to  explain  God's  way,  before  Jehovah  comes 
in  in  His  majesty.  I  cannot  conceive  more  total  want  of 
spiritual  perception  than  this  borrowed  judgment  as  to  Elihu. 
Yet  I  might  have  left  this,  but  that  I  would  remark  that,  in 
the  introduction  and  in  the  account  given  at  the  end,  Jehovah 
is  found  in  the  writer's  part ;  in  all  the  intercourse  of  Job  with 
his  friends,  and  Elihu,  God  and  Almighty.  What  can  the 
scissors  do  here  ?  cut  the  head  and  tail  off,  and  lose  the  key 
to  and  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  story. 

Take  another  case.  In  the  Proverbs  it  is  always  Jehovah 
— (I  think  there  is  one  exception) — the  direction  of  practical 
wisdom  for  those  who  had  Jehovah  for  their  God.  In 
Ecclesiastes  it  is  always  God,  because  it  is  the  vanity  of 
man's  path  and  efforts  after  happiness  here  below  in  contrast 
with  what  God  is  as  such.  It  is  not  a  condition  of  covenant 
relations  but  man  as  such,  and  it  is  not  therefore  Jehovah. 

Now  in  Gen.  i.  and  ii.  to  the  end  of  verse  3  we  have  the 
great  fact  that  God  created.  It  is  simply  this  truth  known  to  no 
heathen  (not  that  Jehovah,  God  known  under  a  particular  name 
of  relationship,  but)  that  God  created  the  universe,  and  crea- 
tures, and  man,  and  rested  the  seventh  day.  This  completes 
that  all-important  statement.  We  know  it  by  faith.  (Heb.  xi.) 
Then  begins  a  new  subject,  not  a  new  account  of  creation. 
This  is  not  so.  It  is  barely  and  very  briefly  alluded  to  in 
connection  with  there  being  no  man  ;  and  then  the  condition, 
nature,  and  moral  position  of  man  is  detailed,  where  God  put 


liim,  under  what  conditions,  the  place  of  animals,  and  the 
woman.  It  is  not  that  God  created,  but  the  condition  and 
status  of  man  before  Jehovah  Elohim.  That  God  who  was  the 
one  true  God  with  whom  man  had  to  do,  but  had  revealed 
Himself  as  Jehovah  to  him  who  told  the  story  of  all  His  ways 
from  the  fall,  and  man  without  law,  and  a  judged  world,  and 
restraint,  and  promise,  and  law,  and,  indeed,  the  whole  condi- 
tion of  man  with  God  till  grace  came  and  the  Father  sent  the 
Son  to  be  the  Saviour ;  though  of  course  the  historical  details 
up  to  law  are  given  afterwards,  God  having  taken  up  a  people 
by  redemption  so  to  try  man.  Every  principle  of  the  whole 
history  is  given  us  in  Genesis,  only  on  the  basis  of  promise, 
not  of  law  and  redemption  and  God's  presence  on  the  earth, 
which  is  in  Exodus  and  what  follows.  But  he  who  learnt  this 
plan  at  the  first,  connects  that  name  Jehovah — a  God  of  judg- 
ment— with  the  origin  of  it  all.  The  Elohim  of  chapter  i.  is 
the  Jehovah  of  Exodus  vi.,  and  the  narrative  of  Jehovah  re- 
counts all  the  history,  up  to  law,  of  the  true  Elohim  who 
now  reveals  Himself  as  testing  man  under  law.  To  say  that 
there  are  two  accounts  of  creation  is  utterly  untrue;  there  is 
nothing  of  the  kind,  no  trace  of  it,  but  a  special  statement  of 
man's  state  and  condition  as  to  God  and  all  the  creation  around 
him ;  let  it  be  shown  if  there  be. 

In  the  third  chapter  we  have  the  writer  using  the  term 
Jehovah  Elohim.  The  great  truth  now  comes  out,  but  Satan 
'saying  in  the  same  sentence,  "Yea  hath  God  said?"  to  Eve; 
speaking  in  no  sense  of  revealed  relationship,  God  the  Creator 
had  said,  so  Satan  again  "  God  doth  know."  But  the  writer 
says  they  heard  tlie  voice  of  the  Lord  God  (Jehovah  Elohim), 
and  so  of  all  that  follows.  To  make  the  first  verse  two  dis- 
tinct documents  .is  just  simply  absurd.  In  iv.  Eve,  taking  up 
a,  promise,  says,  though  mistakenly,  "  I  liave  gotten  a  man  from 
Jehovah."  Here  we  have  always  Jehovah  not  Jehovah  Elo- 
him, a  simple  history,  not  the  solemn  tale  of  man's  ruin  in 


his  relationship  with  God.  Is  this  a  third  document  ?  In 
verse  25  God,  says  Eve,  has  appointed  me.  This  speaks 
merely  of  the  fact  of  what  God,  who  works  all  things,  had 
given  her.  In  chap.  v.  we  have  God  again  as  such,  nor  could 
you  say  in  the  likeness  of  Jehovah,  because  it  is  a  relative 
name,  one  specially  revealed  as  to  God,  not  that  of  the  Creator? 
the  Divine  Being.  So  Enoch  walks  with  God.  The  earth  (vi.) 
was  corrupt  before  God  as  such.  Yet  the  writer  always  speaks 
of  Jehovah  and  His  dealings,  3,  6,  7.  And  He  deals  with  the 
earth  as  so  coiTupted.  Again  as  "  God  "  commanded  him,  not 
Jehovah.  Then  in  vii.  Jehovah  said  to  Noah,  and  as  Jehovah 
commanded  him ;  then  as  God  commanded  him,  and  again 
as  God  commanded  him,  and  Jehovah  shut  him  in.  .Here 
again  if  you  separate  the  verse  into  two,  the  last  part  refers 
to  and  connects  with  nothing,  for  Elohim  is  the  word  used 
when  he  went  in. 

In  Deut.  iv.  32-34  where  Elohim  stands  by  itself  in  its 
proper  force  of  Elohim,  did  God  ever  do  such  a  thing  as 
Jehovah  our  God  has  done  ?  It  is  the  force  of  the  words,  not 
two  different  accounts.  To  Joshua  xxiv.  they  presented 
themselves  before  God  as  such,  and  Joshua  said,  thus  saith 
Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel.  That  is  not  only  I  find  cases 
to  which  the  fancies  of  Astruc  cannot  apply,  but  I  find  the 
reason  why  there  are  the  two  words. 

One  more  case  remains  to  refer  to,  mentioned  by  the  article, 
that  of  Joseph.  This  is  to  be  by  Hupfeld's  third  author,  a 
northern.  It  agrees,  we  are  told,  with  the  Elohistic  author  in 
a  great  part  in  the  use  of  the  name  of  God  (Elohim),  but  is 
widely  divergent  in  other  respects.  But  this  slurs  over  the 
facts  to  cover  what  upsets  the  theory.  The  first  part  of  the 
account  is  Jehovistic ;  that  is,  the  Avriter's  account  of  Joseph 
uses  the  name  of  Jehovah.  He  says  Jehovah  was  with 
Joseph.  That  is,  Moses  knew  the  faithful  One  who  bore  this 
name  with  Israel,   as  he  says,  when  God  commanded  Noah, 


and  he  went  into  the  ark,  Jehovah  shut  him  in ;  when  he  re- 
cites what  passes  between  Joseph  and  the  dreaming  servants  of 
Pharaoh  and  Pharaoh  himself,  he  of  course  says  God.  What 
had  they  to  do  with  Jehovah,  or  any  relationship  with  Him? 
In  the  rest  of  the  recital  of  facts  it  is  Elohim.  But  a  second 
account  is  out  of  the  question ;  they  are  two  parts  of  the  same 
one.  What  brought  Jehovah  and  God  both  into  it  ?  Was  it 
a  northern  author  ?  Jacob  in  his  trial  turns  back  to  the  God 
of  promise  and  calls  him  El  Shaddai.  And,  in  Joseph's  dis- 
course to  his  brethren,  it  is  clearly  God  as  such  in  contrast 
with  his  brethren's  (man's)  doings.  In  Jacob's  blessing 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  while  referring  to  God  Almighty,  he 
naturally  desires  a  blessing  from  God  upon  them,  not  covenant 
blessings  from  Jehovah,  but  God's  blessing  on  them.  What  the 
widely  divergent  things  are,  we  are  left  to  guess. 

It  is  well  to  remember  that  these  German  writers  start  with 
the  assumption  that  no  account  which  relates  miracles  can  be 
historical.  That  is,  they  beg  the  whole  question  to  begin  witL 
Inspiration  is  itseK  a  mii'acle,  Creation  is  the  greatest  miracle  of 
all ;  the  intervention  of  God's  will  and  power  to  produce  that 
which  would  not  have  been  without  it.  I  am  quite  aware  of  the 
question  of  general  laws,  which,  after  all,  are  only  the  constant 
operation  of  God's  will,  and  cannot  therefore  preclude  its 
action.  Let  us  remember,  too,  that  tlie  absolute  denial  of 
action,  independent  of  general  laws,  denies  Christianity  altogether; 
for  resurrection  is  not'  a  general  law  nor  natural  sequence. 
Death  is  not  a  cause  of  resurrection.  But  if  Christ  be  not 
risen,  our  faith  is  vain,  and,  as  Paul  tells  us,  the  witnesses  of 
Christianity  are  false  witnesses.  Let  me  add  the  remark  here, 
that,  in  a  book  otherwise  interesting  and  useful,  the  Duke  of 
Argyle  has  slurred  over  this  point.  If  miracle  cannot  be  his- 
torical, Christ  is  not  risen,  and  if  Christ  be  not  risen,  Christianity 
is  not  true. 

This   is  not   the  gTOund,  if  I  understand   the  article   in 


the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  which  its  author  takes ;  but 
this  will  come  up  if  we  go  on  to  the  New  Testament :  as  yet 
we  are  occupied  with  the  Old.  Now  as  to  this,  if  the  German 
theory  be  true  as  reproduced  in  the  article,  the  whole  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  an  imposition;  I  mean  if  the  law  be  not  a 
system  established  of  God  by  Moses,  as  we  find  it,  but  a  late 
compilation  in  which  crude  materials  were  adjusted  and  a 
system  developed  out  of  national  Ufa  As  far  as  the  law  goes, 
it  all  professes  to  be  words  addressed  by  God  to  man  through 
the  mouth  of  Moses.  Genesis  has  necessarily  another  character, 
equally  requiring  direct  inspiration ;  for  who  among  men  can 
give  an  accoimt  of  creation  and  the  world's  history,  and  a  history 
on  which  all  God's  dealings  with  men  (save  the  church  and  the 
law  of  which  we  have  spoken)  are  founded  in  their  principles, 
and,  as  we  have  seen,  the  New  Testament  is  based  ?  Nor, 
indeed,  can  th-e  beginning  of  Exodus  be  separated  from  the  end 
of  Genesis.  I  need  not  quote  texts  to  show  that  "  Jehovah  said 
unto  Moses,"  and  in  this  way  communicated  His  will  to  the 
chiLdren  of  Israel,  is  the  constant  language  of  the  law.  It  is  a 
clear  positive  revelation  of  God's  words  and  will  by  Moses  as 
it  stands,  or  it  is  an  imposture.  In  Deuteronomy  Moses  re- 
hearses it  all,  and  speaks  to  the  people,  insisting  on  obedience, 
and  recalling  aU  that  had  passed  in  order  to  enforce  it  and  keep 
them  from  idolatry,  adding  details  of  civil  government  for  the 
laud.  Documents  may  or  may  not  have  been  used ;  but  the 
whole  contents  are,  either  a  liistory  and  the  original  establish- 
ment of  God's  law  for  the  people,  with  the  deepest  typical 
instruction  for  us,  given  by  Moses  from  God,  or  an  impos- 

The  adding  an  account  of  Moses'  death  at  the  end  of 
Deuteronomy  does  not  touch  this  question.  Mr.  Smith  tells  us 
that  copyists  added  what  they  liked,  and  did  not  feel  them- 
selves in  the  least  bound  to  distinguish  the  old  from  the  new ; 
there  was  no  notion  of  anything  like  coppight,  they  took  large 

ijS  HAl'E  WE  A  REVZL-lTIoy  FROM  CC'r 

exrracrs  n  :  '.  "_  -  '.  ■_t:^  \  7 inch.  atiiitionsaiiilauoiticadoiLS 
as  tt'T"     -     -  ry.    A  nice  thing  to  rest  cms  Mtk  on  as 

tl:  T  —         :  God,  Sciipuiiies  tnan  carr.ot  be  broke: :  ~y^^ 

--.  .-_T'r"~'  " ■'T^dem.  rei  cujxLs  liiisolutio  petiL^  __  .^ct;" 
.  li  T!ia.t  :  i  v_-  ::cf  tKe  Semitic  genius,  the  Bibi.  is  a  strad- 
1  :j.]     "WLjit  proof  has  he  0  tie  Semitic 

_  :.  7    T  !: .    r.      7V.  rre  13  no  other  ancientHiorew 

7  were  cella  in  the  teni'ii — iat  of  cotae  not  being 
.to  God's  dnreiztiGn  eitber,  it  "wa  die  Semitic 

I    _-r_   :l,:  iij  that  tbe  prophets   openly  ieclare   their 

i^.--":mr>/n,  that  "The  word  of  JehoTah  came  to'-Jtem,"  "Thus 

"dh^  xnH  the  TtVp  ;  that  in  the  histoT)  as  of  Kings 

le,  it  is   openly  stated  that  they  "Bsd  the  royal 

.:  ..^ .^ ;  but  prophets  nsed  than  and  drew  tbGi  up,  aa  we 

_  i^re  the  example  in.  Ti^afah,  that  we  might  ha"v  than  as  the 
^:rd  of  Go«L  That  God  is  not  moitioned  inlidier  is  jnst 
apposite  as  ahowing  the  secret  providence  of  G'  -'  Hia 

people  when  they  were  scattered  and  disowne     -  ^^ —  as  a 


T&aa  not  only  the  Lord  and  the  apostles  -  h^e  owned  the 
Old  Testament  as  we  possess  it  as  God's  inspird  word,  but  it 
pBiaQLts  itself,  as  to  the  law  as  the  direct  fr^-  '  ^  r-.-  -.-•  ^.q-jj^_ 
nnmication  with  God,  givai  fally  and  in  d^.-  ^        ^ ".  and 

the  prophets,  as  the  dired:  eommimication  of  Cod's  mind  and 
words  from  Himself;  and  aH  of  it — ^history,  psadis,  and  all — as 
an  oT^anic  whole  owned  of  die  Lord  Hims''     "     —'----,  -  -.7_ 

fection,  as  such,  will  be  percaved  by  those  w:.  _~ 

He  has  opened,  and  who  learn  there  the  whoLjichem^  of  God 

In  passing  from  the  discussion  of  partic"'"  ' '"  and  ob- 
jections to   a  direct  itiq^.:ry  into  more  po.-.  .  essential 

hat:  u'£  a  s.^ 


evldinic  fronite  cor:t.ri.t5  of  m::_  "~--   I  rr-CiH  ^o  evrzy  r-esTt 

tliat  the  q:irtioa  is — Is  there  a  rexekrlc-n  fr-C'in  God  ?     Iliu  is 

:-    :-■:■;   -lod.    I-'    -     —--:\--^--:  '  - -^ly  ^Liiii, 

£^'1:^  :..  :__  ZYclatior  .:  -^       ,  ^i^?     ^^ 

know  \^]iatiaii  lias  come  to  ^^-■  "       Are-f^r::     t  .  ::     r 

tlie  heatiierL  Uiaply  ve  may  feei  Hini  ' 

there  reallT  slaw  given  Tdt  -"  ^ 

eome  "hr  JesTi^Olirist  ?     Wei 

the  -wrinngs  ^ch  the  Jevr  .  1  to  l:»e  the  Tmnng?  of 

Moses,  and  doe  so,  not  only  to  the  Je^rs,  but  to  His  discii-les, 

and  that  He  opned  their :;         -" 

the  apostles  thfsame — ■^■:=^  :  -  '  - 

contents  ofthei.     Tc     -^     -.   -- 

this  is  sufficieu:     To  those  "who  ir  '   -'-s- 

toiy  must  be  nhistorical,  that  Gou  c: 

all  now,  harin 2^ nee  establish-?":  -:■. 

cide  the  qtif^nn:  before  it  is  tc    -  -^^ 

or  the  aj'ostlf  s  ire  no  weight     I  - 

to  call  thenisetBS  Christiaiis.      Ii   is  i^- 

accredit  themsefes  with  a  name  while  ti^y  -  "    ..-- 

p-ats.     "We  ni5r  earnestly  desire  their  rr-^ver^  ■   .? 

alL     They  labor  on  what  they  h 

profess  to  be  fcuawers  of  : 

lieve  that  then rCest,  mo j- -  .jrii-. 

fullest  commincation  of  — -  —         -  :?  ^"" 

posture.     This  i-hard  to  thint ;  but  it  is  this 


But  pc^^"  ^.'ftre  are  those  who  believe  there  is  a  revelation, 
yet  no  inspire  A  wine  communication  of  it  to  others  Some 
allege  that  i:  is  nt  even  claimed.  2^ow,  see  how  rational  this 
is.  G-od  has  tbught  good  to  give  a  revelation  of  Himsrll  His 
truth.  His  gTacei(>  men  at  lai^e  for  their  good:  He  has  made 
this  revelatior..  bt  in  snch  a  manner  that  it  can  go  no  farther 
in  its  perfecuie^s  ban  the  person  who  receives  it     It  is  pvtoi 


extracts  and  harmonised  them  by  such  additions  and  modifications 
as  they  thought  necessary.  A  nice  thing  to  rest  one's  faith  on  as 
the  word  of  God,  Scriptures  that  cannot  be  broken  !  But  lawyers 
say,  "  Allegatio  ejusdem  rei  cujus  dissolutio  petitur  nil  valet ; " 
and  what  is  the  proof  the  Semitic  genius,  the  Bible,  is  a  strati- 
fication, not  an  organism  ?  What  proof  has  he  of  the  Semitic 
genius  ?  The  Bible.  There  is  no  other  ancient  Hebrew  book. 
And  the  question  is,  Is  it  such  an  in  authentic  comj^ilation  ? 
We  have  nothing  but  his  assertion  about  the  Bible  itself,  except 
that  there  were  cells  in  the  temple — that  of  course  not  being 
arranged  according  to  God's  direction  either,  it  was  the  Semitic 
genius  ! 

I  need  not  say  that  the  prophets  openly  declare  their 
inspiration,  that  "  The  word  of  Jehovah  came  to  them,"  "  Thus 
.saith  Jehovah,"  and  the  like;  that  in  the  history,  as  of  Kings 
for  example,  it  is  openly  stated  that  they  used  the  royal 
chronicles ;  but  proj^hets  used  them  and  drew  them  up,  as  we 
have  tlie  example  in  Isaiah,  that  we  might  have  them  as  the 
word  of  God.  That  God  is  not  mentioned  in  Esther  is  just 
apposite,  as  showing  the  secret  providence  of  God  keeping  His 
people  when  they  were  scattered  and  disowned  of  Him  as  a 

Thus  not  only  the  Lord  and  the  apostles  have  owned  the 
Old  Testament  as  we  possess  it  as  God's  inspired  word,  but  it 
presents  itself,  as  to  the  law  as  the  direct  fruit  of  Moses'  com- 
munication with  God,  given  fully  and  in  detail  originally,  and 
the  prophets,  as  the  direct  communication  of  God's  mind  and 
words  from  Himself;  and  all  of  it — history,  psalms,  and  all — as 
an  organic  whole  owned  of  the  Lord  Himself,  and  whose  per- 
fection, as  such,  will  be  perceived  l)y  those  whose  understandings 
He  has  opened,  and  who  learn  tl;ere  the  whole  scheme  of  God 

In  passing  from  the  discussion  of  particular  points  and  ob- 
jections to   a  direct  inquiry  into  more  positive   and  essential 


evidence  from  the  contents  of  Scripture,  I  recall  to  every  heart 
that  the  question  is — Is  there  a  revelation  from  God  ?  Man  is 
departed  from  God.  Is  there  any  revelation  from  God  by  which," 
as  far  as  the  revelation  of  God  goes,  man  can  know  Him  ?  We 
know  what  man  has  come  to  without  it.  Are  we  to  be  left  as 
the  heathen,  if  haply  we  may  feel  after  Him  and  find  Him  ?  or  is 
there  really  a  law  given  by  Moses,  and  are  grace  and  truth 
come  by  Jesus  Christ  ?  We  have  seen  that  the  Lord  declares 
the  writings  which  the  Jews  received  to  be  the  writings  of 
Moses,  and  does  so,  not  only  to  the  Jews,  but  to  His  disciples, 
and  that  He  opened  their  understanding  to  understand  them — 
the  apostles  the  same — basing  their  arguments  on  the  truth  and 
contents  of  them.  To  one  who  is  not  audacious  in  incredulity 
this  is  sufficient.  To  those  who  affirm  that  a  miraculous  his- 
tory n'^ust  be  unhistorical,  that  God  cannot  act,  or  will  not  at 
all  now,  having  once  established  an  order  of  nature,  and  so  de- 
cide the  question  before  it  is  examined,  the  statements  of  Christ 
or  the  apostles  have  no  weight.  But  then  it  is  pure  impudence 
to  call  themselves  Christians.  It  is  flagrant  dishonesty  to 
accredit  themselves  with  a  name  while  they  reject  all  it  im- 
ports. We  may  earnestly  desire  their  conversion,  but  that  is 
all.  They  labour  on  what  they  hold  to  be  an  imposture,  and 
profess  to  be  followers  of  the  imposture,  and  Nvould  have  us  be- 
lieve that  the  holiest,  most  gracious,  deepest,  and  yet  truest  and 
fuUest  communication  of  the  knowledge  of  God  is  by  an  im- 
posture. This  is  hard  to  think  ;  but  it  is  this  we  have  to  do 

But,  again,  there  are  those  who  believe  there  is  a  revelation, 
yet  no  inspired  divine  communication  of  it  to  others.  Some 
allege  that  it  is  not  even  claimed.  ISTow,  see  how  rational  this 
is.  God  has  thought  good  to  give  a  revelation  of  Himself,  His 
truth.  His  grace,  to  men  at  large  for  their  good ;  He  has  made 
this  revelation,  but  in  such  a  manner  that  it  can  go  no  farther 
in  its  perfectuess  than  the  person  who  receives  it.     It  is  given 


for  the  good  of  all,  and  perfectly  given,  but  it  stops  at  the  first 
person  who  is  the  vessel  of  reception  and  communication,  and  to 
the  rest  comes  only  in  the  imperfection  of  man  as  to  apprehen- 
sion and  communication  ;  a  divine  communication  for  men,  but 
by  divine  arrangement  so  counnunicated  that  it  never  reaches 
men  as  such.  Nothing  they  can  trust  as  divine  is  com- 
municated to  them.     Can  anything  be  more  absurd  ? 

But  Paul  states  the  case  :  When  it  pleased  God,  who 
separated  me  from  my  mother's  womb,  and  called  me  by  His 
gTace'  to  reveal  His  Son  in  me,  that  I  might  preach  Him 
among  the  heathen.  There  was  a  revelation  to  him  for  this 
purpose  by  God,  but  he  could  not  do  it !  though  for  others,  it 
could  not  reach  them,  actually  given  for  them,  but  in  such  a 
manner  that  it  could  not  reach  them.  This  is  the  theory.  But 
he  did  not  handle  the  word  of  God — mark  what  it  was — deceit- 
fidly ;  he  did  not  adulterate  the  pure  wine,  but  by  manifestation 
of  the  truth  commended  himself  to  every  man's  conscience  in 
the  sight  of  God  (2  Cor.  iv.)  So  the  Thessalonians  received  it, 
not  as  the  word  of  man,  but,  as  it  was  in  truth,  the  word  of 
God  (1  Thess.  ii.  3) ;  so  that  if  (2  Cor.  iv.)  his  gospel  was  hid, 
it  was  hid  to  them  that  were  lost.  Their  minds  were  blinded 
by  the  god  of  this  world.  In  1  Cor.  ii.  he  states  it  formally  : 
"Which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in  words  which  man's  wisdom 
teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth.  .  ,  .  But  the 
natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God  .  . 
they  are  spiritually  discerned."  They  are  revealed  by  the  Spirit 
(10-12);  communicated  in  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  taught, 
that  others  might  have  them  as  God  revealed  them  to  Paul  (13), 
and  discerned  by  the  Spirit  (14).  (Comp.  verses  4,  5.)  And  such 
he  asserts  everywhere.  The  things  which  he  wrote  were  to  be 
received  as  (and  were)  the  commandments  of  the  Lord.  The  Old 
Testament  prophets  and  ]\Ioses  declare  what  they  communicate 
is  Jehovah  speaking  ;  so  does  the  apostle. 

Xot  only,  then,  is  the  Bible  a  revelation  from  God,  but  the 


communication  of  it  is  His  work  too — thus  saitli  Jehovah,  or 
Jehovah  said,  in  the  Old,  or  in  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
taught  in  the  New  ;  so  that  what  we  have  is  the  ivorcl  of  God 
It  is  "  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet,"  or  in  words  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  taught.  God  did  not  leave  us  floating  about  in  uncer- 
tainty. Only  when  it  is  presented,  it  is  discerned  spiritually, 
or,  if  rejected,  is  hid  to  them  that  are  lost.  With  this  as  to  the 
history,  we  find  it  drawn  up  by  the  prophets,  and  sanctioned 
by  the  Lord  and  the  apostles. 

It  may  be  said  that  there  are  errors,  and  that  we  have  only 
translations.  I  recognise  that  it  was  committed  to  the  re- 
sponsibility of  man,  just  as  in  a  certain  sense  man's  personal 
salvation  is  ;  yet  he  is  kept  by  the  power  of  God,  and  it  is 
so  too,  liable  to  the  effects  of  human  infirmity.  It  is  quoted, 
recognised,  and  authenticated  by  the  Lord  and  the  apostles, 
and  the  Law  constantly  referred  to  in  the  earliest  writings  of 
the  prophets.  As  to  translations,  no  one  gives  any  as  a 
criterion  of  truth  ;  they  are  a  means  of  communicating  it,  and 
the  criterion  remains  as  it  was,  providentially  preserved  of  God ; 
the  New  (as  :Mr.  S.,  I  thank  God  admits)  adequately  proved  to  be 
authentic,  and,  if  so,  the  Old  authenticated,  as  no  other  book  in 
the  world  is,  by  it,  that  is,  by  the  Lord  and  his  apostles.  It  is 
alleged  the  LXX.  is  quoted.  This  is  confessedly  a  translation, 
and,  as  commonly  known  and  used,  is  commonly  quoted ;  but  it 
is  not  when  the  writers  of  the  New  as  taught  of  God  had  any 
reason  for  doing  otherwise.  They  authenticate  it  only  as  to 
that  for  which  they  quote  it. 

But  I  turn  to  a  pleasanter  part  of  my  attempt.  I  would 
speak  of  the  unity  of  mind  in  the  whole  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament. Whatever  controversy  may  be  raised  as  to  dates, 
there  is  no  question  of  their  being  writings  separated  by 
wide  distances  of  time.  Infidels  do  not  question  that.  In 
some  shape  Jewish  literature  began  with  ]\Ioses.  Jehovistic 
and  Elohistic   documents   may  be   compiled,   but  there  were 


such  documents  to  compile.  There  were  prophets  many  cen- 
turies before  Christ ;  there  were  psalms  composed  by  David, 
the  sweet  psalmist  of  Israel,  as  by  others  contemporary  or  more 
recent,  as  some  assuredly  were.  There  are  different  authors, 
different  styles,  different  epochs  ;  the  grammar  even  became 
changed  in  its  details  in  the  process  of  ages,  as  the  use  of  Hu 
for  the  feminine  and  Nahar  marks  early  Hebrew.  Various 
authors  and  styles,  in  a  word,  follow  each  other  through  a  series 
of  some  1500  years.  In  the  New  Testament  there  is  a  develop- 
ment of  truth  and  divine  counsels,  part  of  which  is  declared 
to  have  never  been  previously  revealed,  and  in  the  nature  of 
things  could  not  have  been  so :  I  mean  the  mystery  of  which 
Paul,  and  Paul  only,  speaks — the  union  of  Jew  and  Gentile 
without  difference  in  one  body  for  heavenly  places,  which  it 
was  impossible  to  reveal  while  Judaism  subsisted,  as  setting 
it  aside  absolutely  in  its  nature.  For  Judaism  kept  up,  while 
Christianity  broke  down,  the  middle  wall  of  partition. 

Now,  if  with  all  these  authors  and  epochs  (in  the  last 
case  setting  aside  the  previously  existing  system,  though  fully 
sanctioning  it  as  divine),  place,  and  time, — if  through  judg- 
ment, promise,  law,  gospel,  and  the  revelation  of  the  church 
completing  the  word  of  God,  I  find  one  plan,  one  mind, 
through  the  whole,  whose  is  it  ?  Unconscious  of  the  bear- 
ing of  it  on  the  whole,  each  occupied  with  the  present  moral 
bearing  of  that  which  was  confided  to  him,  ignorant  in  large 
measure  of  what  others  might  have  to  say,  or  even  setting 
aside  what  had  existed  and  occupied  others,  I  yet  find  all 
minister  to  one  single  plan.  I  find  the  clearest  and  strong- 
est proof  that  one  mind,  one  inspiring  power,  M-hich  knew 
the  end  from  the  beginning,  and  had  this  plan  before  it,  is  the 
real  author  of  what  we  call  the  Bible.  I  insist  upon  its 
being  a  number  of  books  (Jehovistic  and  Elohistic  documents 
if  you  please,  employed,  though  7  do  not  accept  what  is 
said)    of   different    ages   and   characters.      Prophecy,   history, 


poetry,  moral  lessons,  man  before  law,  man  under  law,  a  narrow 
system  to  maintain  the  true  unity  of  the  Godhead  when 
all  was  idolatrous,  and  a  large  system  to  every  creature  under 
heaven,  which  maintained  the  authority  of  the  law,  but  set  it 
totally  aside  as  a  way  of  relationship  with  God,  but  through 
all  one  single  thread  of  divine  purpose  running,  which  makes 
every  part  subservient  in  its  place  to  the  whole,  making  over 
sixty  books  (or,  taking  Jewish  computation  of  Old  Testament, 
forty-nine)  one  single  book — the  Bible. 

I  can  only  in  such  a  paper  as  this  take  some  special 
elements  as  showing  this,  after  stating  from  Scri]3ture  what 
the  divine  purpose  is,  only  noticing  what  is  of  the  last 
moment,  that  it  is  not  a  mere  purpose  as  to  facts  to  be 
accomplished,  but  that  these  involve  the  whole  moi-al  basis 
of  man's  relationship  with  God :  innocence,  loss  of  it,  moral 
responsibility,  the  law  given  as  a  perfect  measure  of  it  with 
divine  authority,  man  doubly  guilty  by  breaking  it,  remedial 
means  in  the  testimony  of  the  prophets  and  in  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  God  Himself,  all  in  vain  issuing  in  the  judgment  of  the 
world,  and  every  mouth  stopped,  and  all  the  world  guilty  before 
God,  and  a  perfect  salvation  by  grace  on  God's  part,  according 
to  His  own  nature  and  glory,  laid  hold  of  in  promise  throughout 
all  ages,  and  then  fully  revealed ;  and  finally  heavenly  glory, 
and  a  restored  earth  under  the  first  and  the  new  covenant,  and 
then  eternity ;  and,  I  may  add,  the  church's  special  place  in 
all  this,  which  is  peculiar,  all  made  manifest  and  unfolded  in 
the  development  of  this  purpose,  and  issuing  in  the  fulness  of  the 
divine  glory,  and  the  infinite  and  eternal  blessing  of  those  who 

The  purpose  is  this,  as  stated  in  Scripture  (Eph.  i.),  that  for 
the  administration  of  the  fulness  of  times  He  should  gather  to- 
gether  in  one  {avaxKpaXaiusaadai)  all  thmgs  in  heaven  and  in  earth 
in  Christ  (the  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  man),  in  whom  we  have 
obtained  our  inheritance.     In  this  there  are  two  great  scenes — 

144  HA  VE  WE  A  RE  VELA  TION  FROM  GOD  ? 

heaven  and  earth,  and  as  to  them  two  great  objects  of  revelation 
Tinder  Christ  —  the  church  and  glorified  saints  in  heavenly 
places,  and  the  Jews  in  earthly — the  one  reigning  with  Christ, 
the  others  reigned  over,  as  is  all  the  world,  by  Him  as  Son  of 
man,  raised  and  glorified,  with  the  Father's  house,  where  He  is 
gone,  as  our  home — one  being  the  expression  of  the  sovereign 
grace  which  has  put  us  into  the  same  glory  as  the  Son  of  God  ; 
the  other,  the  government  of  this  world.  See  Eph.  i.  22,  23, 
and  9-11,  and  Deut.  xxxii.  8,  9,  for  a  brief  statement  of  the  Jewish 
part,  verses  8  and  43.  All  are  under  the  Son  of  man,  or 
united  to  Him.  This  latter  part,  as  peculiar  to  the  church,  I 
leave  aside  for  the  moment. 

God  began,  not  of  course  with  the  Second,  but  with  the 
first  Adam — not  with  the  ]\Ian  of  His  purpose,  but  with 
responsible  man.  This  responsibility,  as  traced  and  followed 
out  in  innocence,  fallen  and  without  law ;  then  (passing  by 
promise,  which  was  of  grace  and  brought  out  in  Abraham) 
under  law  ;  then  in  sending  Christ  after  patient  warnings  and 
encouragements  by  the  prophets,  saying,  They  will  reverence  my 
Son  ;  but  they  cast  Him  out  of  the  vineyard  and  slew  Him. 
Then,  the  probation  of  man  having  been  thus  fully  gone  through, 
man  is  treated  as  lost :  only  a  full  salvation  provided  for  him  in 
the  work  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  whom,  the  Second  Adam,  the 
Son  of  man,  all  the  promises  and  purposes  of  God  are  to  be  fulfilled. 
He  is  the  man  of  God's  purpose,  all  promises  in  Him  Yea  and  in 
Him  Amen  ;  taking  the  inheritance  of  all  things  man  Avas  to  have 
in  the  purpose  of  God,  according  to  the  redemption  in  which  God 
was  perfectly  and  in  every  respect  glorified.  Through  all  we 
have  the  great  adversary  revealed  in  all  that  was  needed,  that 
we  should  know  clearly  the  position  of  those  concerned,  but  no 

The  result  of  all  this  and  its  general  principle  is  already 
brought  out  in  the  garden  of  Eden  ;  not  a  promise  to  the 
first  man — there  is  none,  but  the  purpose  of  God  when  the  first 


man  had  failed  in  responsibility.      This  responsibility  he  was 
put  under,  tempted  by  the  adversary,  and  failed.     The  Lord  God 
judged  the  woman  for  listening,  but  makes  known  the  Second 
Man,  the  last  Adam.    He,  the  Seed  of  the  woman,  was  to  bruise 
the  serpent's  head,  the  serpent  to  bruise  His  heel — the  latter  in 
the  cross,  the  former  when  He  comes  in  power.     This  is  no  pro- 
mise to  the  first  man,  though  his  faith  might  lay  hold  of  it,  but 
a  revelation  of  the  Second.     Adam  assuredly  was  not  the  Seed 
of  the  woman.     The  history  is  referred  to  as  unquestionable 
truth  by  Paul  (1  Tim.  ii.  9-15),  as  a  ground  for  minute  details  as 
to  woman  ;  as  a  basis  of  the  profoundest  doctrine  (Rom.  v.  12- 
21),  showing  sin  to  have  been  there  by  this  means  before  the 
law,  and  when  there  was  none  ;  but  referring  to  Hosea  vi.  7,^ 
showing  that  Adam  was  under  a  law  (not  to  eat  of  the  tree  of 
knowledge),  but  that  from  him  to  Moses  man  had  none,  con- 
firmed as  to  the  character  of  judgment  (Eom.  ii.  12),  those  that 
have  sinned  (avoiiMc)  without  law  being  distinguished  from  those 
who  have  sinned  under  it.    So  for  watchfulness  it  is  referred  to 
in  2  Cor.  xi.  3.    So  the  whole  order  and  structure  of  God's  plan 
in  Christ,  connected  with  ruin  in  the  first  Adam,  is  unfolded  in 
1   Cor.  XV.,  specially  20-28   and  45-49,  and  that  in  resurrec- 
tion.    The  accomplishment  in  Jews,  Gentiles,  and  the  raised 
saints  is  founded  on  Isa.  xxv.  6-8. 

But  there  were  other  and  special  promises  made  to  the 
seed  of  Abraham  according  to  the  flesh,  renewed  in  David 
and  confined  to  Israel,  though  mercy  was  to  be  extended  to 
the  Gentiles  on  their  failure.  Of  this  Genesis  is  full,  and 
the  state  of  Israel  under  promise  and  failure  is  the  whole 
subject  of  the  Psalms,  besides  Christ  personally  brouglit  in 
as  connected  with  them.  (See  Gen.  xv.  xvii.)  These  pro- 
mises, given  unconditionally  to  Abraham,  were  taken  up  con- 
ditionally at  Sinai ;  so  that,  though  the  promises  remained,  yet 
under  JMoses  the  law  was  introduced,  and  on  the  ground  of  the 

^  For  "meix"  in  text,  read  Adam,  as  in  Hebrew  and  margin. 


old  covenant  tlieir  accomplishment  depended  as  much  on  Israel's 
fidelity  as  on  God's.  God  said,  If  ye  obey  my  voice  ;  and  Israel 
said,  All  that  Jehovah  hath  spoken  we  will  do. 

Thus  not  only  historically  Israel  stood  on  the  ground 
of  the  old  covenant,  but  an  immense  principle  was  estab- 
lished and  question  raised,  Is  man's  righteousness  the  ground 
of  his  standing  before  God,  or  is  God's  righteousness  that  on 
which  a  sinner  can  be  accepted  ?  But  Israel  also  thus  stood 
on  a  double  ground — promises  made  to  Abraham,  and  right- 
eousness under  the  law  ;  and  yet  grace,  unless  God  were 
the  God  of  the  Jews  only,  must  reach  out  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  this  must  be  in  Christ,  and  as  taking  His  power  as  head 
over  all  things,  as  we  have  seen,  as  Son  of  man.  During  the 
subsistence  of  the  middle  wall  of  partition,  the  blessing  of 
the  Gentiles  was  not  sliut  out  in  hope,  but  left,  as  they  were, 
in  obscurity  and  darkness.  When  the  world  was  idolatrous, 
the  maintenance  of  the  knowledge  of  one  true  God  made  this 
necessary,  and,  so  perverse  is  man,  was  with  the  utmost  diffi- 
culty maintained.  In  the  promises  to  Abraham  it  is  as 
clearly  as  possible  revealed  in  Gen.  xii.,  and  after  Isaac's  being 
offered  up  as  a  figure,  and  so  received  as  raised  from  the  dead, 
confirmed  to  the  seed.     All  nations  were  to  be  blessed  in  Him. 

When  Moses  and  the  law  had  come  in,  then  it  was  only  on  tlie 
judgment  of  Israel  that  this  blessing  came  out,  and  that  through 
Christ  (see  Eom.  xi.)  So  Deut.  xxxii.  28,  tlie  judgment  being 
solemnly  insisted  on  in  what  precedes  both  of  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, though  sparing  a  remnant  in  Israel,  owned  in  verse  43  as 
His  people,  but  the  nations  to  rejoice  with  tliem.  W^e  have 
seen  these  two  recognised  in  Isaiah  xxv.,  with  the  resurrection 
added,  and  all  united  with  Christ's  reign  in  1  Cor.  xv.,  quoting 

The  contrast  of  law  and  gospel  is  fully  discussed  by  Paul,  and 
the  promises  without  condition,  and  the  law  with  both  promiees 
and  gospel,  in  Eomans  and  Galatians.     In  Gal,  iii.  he  insists  on 


the  promiBe  without  condition,  and  that  the  law  430  years  after- 
wards could  not  be  added  to  an  unconditional  promise  confirmed 
to  the  Seed,  nor  that  promise  disannulled.  The  law  was  broken, 
and  that,  as  it  depended  under  the  old  covenant  on  Israel's  obe- 
dience whether  the  blessing  was  to  be  fulfilled,  was  easily  dis- 
posed of  But  the  promises  ?  They  were  to  be  made  good 
through  the  promised  Seed,  the  Messiah,  a  fact  made  clearer  and 
clearer  as  Israel's  disobedience  grew  more  and  more  manifest, 
and  indeed  fully  established  in  the  promise  to  David  ;  but  then 
it  must  be  through  bruising  the  serpent's  head  and  wider  than 
Israel.  When  failure  under  priesthood  in  the  land  in  Eli,  and 
under  prophecy  in  Samuel,  and  the  direct  government  of  God 
by  these  means  had  been  fully  manifested,  God's  King,  the  be- 
loved, was  raised  up  ;  and  this  double  blessing  of  Israel  and  the 
Gentiles  and  man's  glory  as  in  Christ  was  brought  to  light, 
grace  in  power,  though  it  was  but  a  remnant  in  Israel  who  would 
finally  profit  by  it. 

But  here  the  difficulty  of  the  unconditional  promises  came 
in,  and  the  promises  to  the  Seed  in  whom  they  were  to  be 
fulfilled.  The  law,  as  I  have  said,  was  clearly  broken  from 
the  days  of  the  golden  calf  But  the  promises  were  to  be  fulfilled 
in  the  Seed,  in  the  Son  of  David.  Israel  rejected  Him,  and  lost 
all  title  whatever  to  any  promises.  God  had  taken  away  His 
throne  when  they  went  captive  to  Babylon.  The  cherubim  and 
the  glory  that  sat  there  judged  the  city  and  went  up.  But  the 
promises  ?  A  residue  was  preserved  and  brought  back,  shorn 
of  its  glory  as  God's  people,  but  still  having  these  promises ; 
and  Messiah  came,  the  promised  One,  a  minister  of  the  circum- 
cision for  the  truth  of  God,  to  confirm  the  promises  made  to  the 
fathers,  and  they  rejected  Him,  and  God  wrought  a  salvation 
effectual  for  man.  His  salvation  to  the  ends  of  the  earth  yet 
will  accomplish  His  promises  to  Israel,  only  on  the  ground  of 
pure  grace,  while  He  takes  those  that  own  the  rejected  One  to  be 
His  companions  in  glory  in  heaven  and  to  reign  with  Him.     It 


is   this  that  makes  the  apostle  exclaim,  0  the  depth  of  the 
riches  ! 

Now  as  Gal.  iii.  and  Eom.  ii.  iii.  iv.  (and  vii.  yet  more  experi- 
mentally) discuss  the  law  and  grace  and  promise  in  its  moral 
bearing  for  any,  so  Eom,  ix,-xi.  discusses  it  in  reference  to  Jew 
and  Gentile  in  a  dispensation al  way.  In  ix.  God  must  be  sover- 
eign, or  Ishmaelites  and  Edomites  must  be  let  in,  and  all  Israel 
save  Moses  shut  out,  and  God  would  use  His  sovereignty  to  let 
in  the  Gentiles.  Then  Israel's  rejection  and  stumbling  at  the 
stumbling-stone  was  all  foretold,  and  God's  being  found  of  the 
Gentiles  (x.)  But  it  was  not  final  rejection.  Paul  was  a  Jew, 
so  there  was  a  remnant  (Dent,  xxxii.)  The  letting  in  of  tlie 
Gentiles  was  to  provoke  them  to  jealousy;  but  lastly,  accord- 
ing to  infallible  promise,  the  Deliverer  would  come  to  Zion 
(Eom.  xi.) 

Thus  in  the  law  we  have,  not  only  a  dispensation  of  God 
with  Israel,  but  the  great  question  of  human  rigliteousness 
raised  for  every  soul.  It  was  not  an  arbitrary  rule,  but  God's 
perfect  rule  for  man,  taldng  up  all  the  relationships  in  Mhich 
He  had  placed  man  as  now  fallen,  with  Himself  and  each  other, 
and  requiring  man's  acting  up  to  them,  and  he  should  live  ;  but 
the  flesh,  man  in  his  Adam-nature,  was  not  subject  to  the  law 
of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be  so ;  then  they  that  are  in  the 
flesh  cannot  please  God  (no  one  in  Adam's  standing).  ]\Ian's 
righteousness  not  only  does  not  exist  in  fact,  but  is  set  aside  in 
principle  ;  but,  as  we  have  seen,  without  law,  man  was  lawless, 
under  it  a  transgressor,  and,  when  God  was  manifested,  then  the 
Lord  could  say,  Now  they  have  both  seen  and  hated  both  Me 
and  my  Father.  Hence  we  read,  Now  is  the  judgment  of  this 
world ;  but,  thank  God,  Now  is  the  prince  of  this  world  cast  out. 
And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto 
me.  But  now  once  in  the  end  of  the  vjorld  (the  consummation 
of  ages)  He  hath  appeared  to  put  aAvay  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of 
Himself.     The  heel  of  the  Seed  of  the  woman  was  bruised,  but 


the  work  done  gave  Him  a  title  in  righteousness,  a-ccording 
to  God,  to  bruise  his  head.  The  power  of  the  enemy  was,  by 
death,  disannulled  morally  Qm  zara^y^ari),  and  will  be  wholly  set 
aside  in  heaven  and  earth  when  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in 
His  glory  :  not  all  enemies,  it  is  true,  subjected  at  once,  but 
He  having  taken  to  Him  His  great  power  to  reign  and  do  so. 

But  not  only  were  the  Gentiles  left  in  darkness  during  the 
narrow  period  of  testing  man  under  law,  and  the  promises  con- 
fined in  their  actual  application  to  a  peculiar  people,  but  life  and 
incorruptibility  were  brought  to  light  only  under  the  Gospel,  and 
access  to  God  allowed.  The  state  under  the  law  was  marked 
by  the  veil,  and  the  barriers  which  forbade  it ;  now  the  holiest 
entered,  God's  righteousness  being  by  faith  for  Gentile  as  well 
as  Jew,  and  all  the  higher  glories  revealed  in  connection  with 
resurxection,  and  a  new  state  of  man  and  a  new  creation,  of 
which  Christ  risen  and  glorified  is  the  first  fruits  and  head, 
"  the  second  Man  from  heaven,"  (0  dtvrsoog  a'Jswrog  'i^  ol^avoZ) 
and  now  gone  back  there  as  Man, 

The  reader  who  is  acquainted  with  Scripture  will  have  seen 
that  I  have  only  made  an  abstract  of  its  statements  in  all  I  have 
said,  and  put  them  together  so  that  we  may  see  that  it  is  one 
complete  plan  of  God,  of  which  the  moral  principles  and  the 
historical  development,  though  distinct  subjects,  cannot  be 
separated.  But  let  us  see  if  we  cannot,  in  some  leading  details, 
trace  it  through  the  Scripture,  showing  them  more  in  detail, 
enchained  by  the  plan  of  one  mind.  Indeed  it  begins  before 
the  world,  of  course  then  in  the  thoughts  of  God,  but  revealed 
to  us,  though  mercy,  not  till  the  gospel  came,  not  till  the  first 
man  had  been  fully  tried  and  tested  in  his  responsibility.  Thus 
we  read  (Prov.  viii.),  speaking  of  wisdom  (and  Christ  is  the 
wisdom  of  God  and  the  power  of  God) : — "  I  was  (before  the 
creation,  which  is  poetically  described)  daily  His  delight, 
rejoicing  always  before  Him,  rejoicing  in  the  habitable  parts  of 
His  (Jehovah's)  earth ;  and  my  delights  were  with  the  sons  of 


men" — here,  in  the  nature  and   principle   of  His  place,  the 
Son  of  man. 

Hence,  when  Christ  was  horn,  we  find  the  angels  celebrating 
his  birth  with  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  on  earth  peace  (not 
good  will  towards,  but)  good  pleasure  in  men.  He  did  not,  as 
it  is  written,  take  up  angels,  but  He  took  up — here  narrowing 
it  to  grace  and  promise — the  seed  of  Abraham,  consequently 
associating  it  at  once  with  Old  Testament  history.  So  we  read 
in  2  Tim.  i.  9  :  "Who  hath  saved  us,  and  called  us  with  an  holy 
calling,  not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to  His  own 
purpose  and  grace,  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before 
the  world  began,  but  is  now  made  manifest  by  the  appearing  of 
our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  So  Tit.  i.  :  "  In  hope  of  eternal  life, 
which  God,  that  cannot  lie,  promised  before  the  worlds,  but 
hath  in  due  times  manifested,"  etc.  So  1  Cor.  ii. :  "We  speak  the 
wisdom  of  God  in  a  mystery,  which  God  ordained  before  the 
world  for  our  glory."  Now,  till  the  rejection  of  Christ,  these 
counsels  of  God  in  grace  were  not  brought  out  to  light  as  we 
see  stated  here,  because  the  first  man,  and  the  possibility  of  his 
recovery,  were  being  tried,  though  God,  who  knew  what  man 
was,  was  quickening  souls  from  the  beginning.  Still  we  shall 
find  full  traces  of  all  that  concerns  both  the  history  of  Christ, 
His  rejection  and  future  glories,  or,  as  Peter  expresses  it,  the 
sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glories  that  should  follow. 

Let  us  take  Messiah  and  Son  of  man,  and  the  connection  of 
their  titles  with  Israel  and  the  future  glory  of  Christ.  In 
Psalm  i.  we  have  the  remnant  carefully  distinguished  from  the 
ungodly,  as  Isaiah  says  :  "  Except  Jehovah  of  hosts  had  left  us 
a  very  small  remnant,  we  sliould  have  been  as  Sodom,  and  like 
unto  Gomorrah."  But  it  is  well  to  note,  before  we  proceed  to 
the  chain  of  texts,  that  the  Lord  expressly  tells  us  that  this 
peace  on  earth  was  not  to  be  accomplished  by  His  first  coming, 
"  Suppose  ye,"  He  says,  "  that  I  am  come  to  give  peace  on  earth  ? 
I  teU  you,  Nay,  but  rather  division  :  for,  from  henceforth,  theie 


shall  be  five  in  one  house  divided,  three  against  two,  and  two 
against  three  "  (Luke  xii.  51,  52),  practically  a  quotation  from 
Micah  vii.,  where  it  is  presented  as  the  extreme  of  evil,  evil 
drawn  out  in  its  worst  forms  in  fact,  by  the  perfect  manifesta- 
tion of  good,  of  God  Himself,  shown  in  the  death  of  Christ,  and 
in  hatred  of  those  faithful  to  Him  ;  for  all  that  will  live  godly  in 
Christ  Jesus  shall  suffer  persecution. 

But  as  to  Christ,  He  was  to  suffer  and  make  atonement,  sit 
not  yet  on  His  own  throne,  but  on  the  Father's,  at  the  right  hand 
of  God — expecting  till  His  enemies  were  made  His  footstool ; 
where  He  is  now,  the  work  perfectly  accomplished  which 
perfectly  glorifies  God,  gives  us  a  perfect  conscience,  destroys  in 
title  the  whole  power  of  Satan,  is  the  sure  foundation  of  eternal 
blessedness,  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth  :  but,  througli 
whieh,  we  are  called  to  take  up  our  cross  and  suffer,  who  are  to 
have  the  heavenly  inheritance,  and  be  like  Him  in  glory,  but 
must  wait  here  with  Him  now,  and  while  He  waits,  having 
the  sympathy  of  our  great  High  Priest,  or,  with  Him,  as  to  our 
spirits  if  called  away  before  He  comes.  If  He  is  crucified,  we 
must  suffer,  not  reign,  till  He  takes  to  Him  His  great  power 
and  reigns :  till  then  Satan  is  still  the  god  and  prince  of  this 
world,  not  cast  down  from  the  heavens. 

From  the  beginning  man,  under  his  influence,  has  spoiled 
what  God  set  up  good — spoiled  it  the  first  thing  :  so  the  first 
man  himself,  so  Noah  got  drunk,  so  tlie  golden  calf  was 
made,  so  Nadab  and  Abihu  offered  strange  fire,  and  the  holiest 
was  closed  to  Aaron  save  one  special  day ;  so  through  Solo- 
mon's sin  the  kingdom  was  divided ;  and,  under  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, the  Gentile  power  became  a  beast ;  so  always,  and  apos- 
tasy set  in  before  the  apostle's  eyes  were  closed. 

But  Satan  will  be  cast  down  from  heaven  (Rev,  xii.),  where 
he  is  now  the  accuser  of  the  brethren.  Then  we  shall  have,  as 
Luke  tells  us,  peace  in  heaven,  glory  in  the  liighest ;  and 
"  Blessed  be  the  King  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord"  here 

152  liA  VE  WE  A  REVELATION  FROM  GOD  ? 

below  (Luke  xix.  38) :  though,  then,  it  was  babes  and  sucklings 
that  were  found  to  utter  His  praise  to  still  the  enemy  and  the 
avenger,  or  the  stones  would  have  cried  out.  It  is  when  He 
comes  again  that  evil  will  be  put  down. 

But  to  come  to  the  citations  of  passages  of  Scripture  :  in 
Psalm  ii.,  after  giving  the  character  of  the  remnant  in  Psalm  i., 
we  have  the  determination  of  Jehovah  to  set  His  King  on  the 
holy  hill  of  Zion,  the  anointed  Man,  the  Son  of  God  as  born 
in  this  world,  who  is  further  to  ask  for  dominion  over  the 
heathen  whom  He  will  rule  with  a  rod  of  iron,  and  break  in 
pieces  like  a  potter's  vessel  (comp.  Eev.  ii.  26,  27).  But  for 
the  present  He  is  rejected.  The  kings  of  the  earth  and  the 
rulers  take  counsel  together  against  the  Lord  and  against  His 
anointed  (Christ  or  Messiah).  Adonai,  sitting  in  the  heavens, 
shall  laugh  at  them.  In  Acts  iv.  26,  27,  the  Holy  Spirit  ex- 
pressly applies  this  to  Christ's  rejection  and  death. 

In  Psalms  iii.-vii.  we  have  the  consequent  sorrows  of  the 
remnant,  on  which  I  do  not  enter.  But  in  Psalm  viii.  Christ 
is  celebrated  in  another  character,  when  the  Jews  can  cele- 
brate Jehovah's  name  excellent  in  all  the  earth,  and  as  having 
set  His  glory  above  the  heavens,  and  as  their  Lord  or  Adon : 
a  state  of  things  not  yet  accomplished  in  fact,  M'liile  the 
second  verse  is  used  by  the  Lord  in  the  passage  first  quoted 
from  Luke,  as  the  testimony  enforced,  so  to  speak,  by  God, 
when  the  Saviour  was  here  and  rejected,  quoting  also  Ps. 
cxviii.,  of  which  we  may  speak  as  specially  referring  to  this 
future  time  of  Christ's  return  in  power.  Now  I  quote  this  to 
show  that  it  is  identified  with  man's  being  set  over  the  works 
of  God's  hands.  The  Son  of  man,  which  the  Lord  constantly 
applies  to  Himself,^  coming  specifically  into  view,  a  passage  as 
applied  to  Him  in  its  fuU  import  as  inheriting  all  God's  pur- 
poses as  to  man  ;  used  as  defining  the  whole  position  in  the 

^  He  never  calls  Himself  the  Christ  save  to  the  woman  of  Samaria  (John  iv. ) 
wheu  He  had  left  Judtea. 


results  of  divine  administration  more  than  once  by  the  apostle 
Paul,  as  (Eph.  i.  22)  "  And  hath  put  all  things  under  His  feet, 
and  gave  Him  to  be  head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  which" 
is  His  body  "  (comp.  Col.  i.  15-18) ;  and  again,  in  1  Cor.  xv. 
20-28,  when  all  things  are  to  be  put  under  the  feet  of  the  risen 
(the  second)  Man,  except  Him  who  put  all  things  under  Him. 
Here  the  whole  scheme  is  unfolded;  and  again  in  Heb.  ii.  we 
are  told  that  we  see  not  as  yet  all  things  put  under  Him  ;  but  we 
see  Jesus  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels  for  the  suffering  of 
death,  crowned  with  glory  and  honour.  Nothing  can  be  more 
precise  to  both  the  divine  purpose  and  the  measure  of  its  accom- 
plishment, than  these  passages. 

The  general  fact  is  again  brought  before  us,  in  quite  another 
part  of  Scripture,  in  contrast  with  the  earthly  power  of  evil,  in 
Daniel,  seventh  chapter.  The  chapter  is  divided  by  the  ex- 
pression "  I  saw  in  the  night  visions,"  1-6,  7-12,  to  give  the  last 
beast,  the  principal  one,  more  particularly,  then  13,  14  ;  from 
15  to  the  end,  inquiry  and  explanation,  bringing  in  both  the 
saints  killed  by  the  beast  (and  who,  as  is  confirmed  in 
Eev.  XX.,  go  into  heaven)  and  Israel.  I  quote  13  :  "I  saw  in  the 
night  visions,  and,  behold,  one  like  the  Son  of  man  came  with 
the  clouds  of  heaven,  and  came  to  the  Ancient  of  days,  and  they 
brought  Him  near  before  Him,"  etc.  This  was  when  the  thrones 
had  been  set  for  judgment.  But  afterwards  we  find  it  was  the 
Ancient  of  days  who  came  when  judgment  was  given  (22)  to 
the  saints  of  the  most  high  (the  high  places).  So  in  Psalm 
Ixxx.,  where  Israel  is  crying  out  (not  merely  Jews)  for  their 
final  deliverance,  it  is  (17)  :  "Let  thy  hand  be  upon  the  man  of 
thy  right  hand,  upon  the  Son  of  man  whom  Thou  madest  strong 
for  Thyself."  Thus  the  rejected  Messiah,  cut  off,  and  wlio 
took  nothing  of  the  kingdom  and  glory,  but  cut  off  Him- 
self, is  the  one  who  is  the  head  over  aU.  things  as  Son  of 
man  according  to  the  purpose  of  God. 

This  truth  runs  through  the  Gospels  where  no  passage  perhaps 


is  quoted.  Nathanael  owns  Jesus  to  be  the  Clirist  according  to 
Ps.  ii. :  *'  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  the  King  of  Israel."  "  Thou 
shalt  see  greater  things  than  these,"  says  the  Lord.  "Henceforth 
thou  shalt  see  the  angels  of  God  ascending  and  descending  on 
the  Son  of  man."  He  takes  His  place  as  Son  of  man  in  con- 
trast with  and  beyond  that  of  Ps.  ii.  In  John's  Gospel  the  Jews 
are  treated  as  rejected  and  reprobate  from  the  first  chapter  (i, 
10,  11),  a  remnant,  born  again  and  believing,  alone  owned,  be- 
cause Jesus  is  God,  and  Him  man  never  received,  but  was 
enmity  against. 

The  three  other  Gospels  present  Him  as  Messiah,  Emmanuel, 
Jehovah,  the  Saviour  (Matt.)  ;  the  prophet-servant  (j\Iark) ;  and 
Son  of  man  in  grace  after  the  first  two  chapters,  a  lovely  picture 
of  the  remnant  in  Israel  (Luke).  Hence  we  have  genealogy, 
from  Abraham  and  David  in  IMattliew,  up  to  Adani  in  Luke.-^ 
When  the  Jews  are  utterly  rejected  at  the  end  of  j\Iatt.  xii.,  so 
that  He  no  longer  seeks  fruit  in  his  vineyard  and  fig-tree  (46- 
50),  He  goes  out  to  sow,  but  He  that  sows  the  good  seed  is  the 
Son  of  man  ;  the  kingdom  in  mystery,  i.e.  without  a  present 
king  (xiii.),  the  church  (xvi.),  the  kingdom  in  glory  (xvii.), 
are  substituted  for  Israel  under  the  Old  Covenant,  but  in 
xvi.  20  they  are  cliargcd  to  tell  no  man  that  He  was  the 
Christ  :  The  Son  of  man  (xvii.  12)  must  suffer  of  them  ; 
more  immediately  contrasted,  in  Luke  ix.,  which  ends  the 
chronological  history  (see  verse  21),  when  Peter,  taught  of 
God,  owns  Him  to  be  the  Christ,  "  He  straitly  charged  them 
and  commanded  them  to  tell  no  man  that  thing,  saying,  The 
Son  of  INIan  must  suffer  .  .  .  but  be  raised  tlic  third  day  ;" 
and  then  He  shows  tliem  the  glory  of  tlic  coming  king- 
dom ;  the  Son  of  man  would  come  in  His  own  glory,  in  the 
Fathers,  and  of  the  holy  angels,  as  Son  of  Man,  Son  of  the 
Father,  and  as  Jehovah.      Put  (]\Iatt.  xvii.  9)  this  belonged  to 

^  I  should  read  Luke  iii.  23  :  ("  Being,  as  was  supposed,  sou  of  Joseph),  of 
Ileli,"  etc.     Tov  'H\i  is  eouuecred  with  Jrsus,  uut  with  Joseph. 


another  scene,  and  man  as  a  new  creation.  They  were  not  to  tell 
it  till  He  was  risen  again  frora  among  the  dead,  and  (Luke  ix.  36) 
they  kept  it  close,  M'ithal  wondering  what  rising  from  among  the 
dead  should  mean^  (Mark  ix.  10),  and  from  that  day  began  to 
press  upon  them  that  the  Son  of  man  must  suffer  (Matt.  xvi. 
21,  Mark  ix.  31,  Luke  ix.  44).  In  John  we  have  this  under 
another  form,  namely  that  of  a  full  testimony  from  God,  when 
Israel  had  rejected  Him,  as  Son  of  God,  Son  of  David,  and  Son 
of  man.  The  first  is  raising  Lazarus  (xi.  4).  "  This  sickness  is 
not  unto  death,  but  for  the  glory  of  God,  and  that  the 
Son  of  God  should  be  glorified  thereby."^  He  is  the  resur- 
rection and  the  life.  Then  (xii.  13)  they  meet  Him,  accord- 
ing to  Ps.  cxviii.,  crying,  "  Hosanna !  (save  now,  I  beseech 
thee)  blessed  is  the  King  of  Israel  that  cometh  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord."  Then  the  Greeks  ("exX)j«$)  commg  up,  the  wider 
scene  of  Gentiles,  the  Lord  says  :  "  The  hour  is  come  that  the 
Son  of  man  should  be  glorified.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
Except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the  gi'ound  and  die,  it  abideth 
alone ;  but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit ;"  and  (32),  "I,  if 
I  be  lifted  up  from  tlie  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me."  So 
in  His  rejection,  abjured  by  the  High  Priest,  He  owns  He  is  the 
One  spoken  of  in  Ps.  ii.,  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  but  adds  : 
• "  iSTevertheless,  I  say  unto  you,  Hereafter  shall  ye  see  the  Son 
of  ]\Ian  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power  and  coming  in  the 
clouds  of  heaven."  Thus  that  which  dispensationally  set  aside 
the  Jews  under  the  Old  Covenant,  and  ended  tlidr  title  under 
the  promises,  brought  out  the  far  deeper  truths  of  the  enmity  of 
man's  heart  against  God  in  goodness — "  They  have  both  seen  and 
hated  both  me  and  my  Father  " — but  the  accomplishment  of  that 
glorious  work  in  which  salvation  was  provided  for  Gentile  as 
well  as  Jew,  and  God  perfectly  glorifiod  in  all  that  He  is  ;  the 

^  All  as  Pharisees  believed  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 
"  The  stupid  ratioualiats  cannot,  of  course,  see  why  this  mii-acle  was  brought 
in  here. 


Christ  rejected,  Messiah  cut  off,  as  Daniel  declared  ;  but  that  as 
Son  of  man,  not  now  taking  the  glory,  but  as  suffering,  yet 
vindicated  of  God  as  such  ;  the  whole  truth  of  Ps.  ii.  and  viii., 
Adam  the  image  of  Him  that  was  to  come  (Dan.  ix.,  Dan.  vii.) 
brought  into  light  and  accomplishment,  and  this  not  in  quoted 
passages,  but  in  realising  facts :  and  then,  when  the  Holy  Ghost 
WEiiS.  given,  the  passages  applied  and  explained,  as  in  Acts  iv, 
and  Eph.  i,  1  Cor.  xv.,  Heb.  ii.,  with  no  appearance  of  putting 
together  or  ari6T,ngement  by  those  who  uttered  these  things,  but 
showing  one  mind  and  thought  and  plan  behind  it  all,  the  word 
and  counsel  of  God.  "  I  might  multiply  passages  as  to  the  use 
of  Son  of  man,  but  I  have  only  quoted  what  brought  the  bear- 
ing of  Ps.  ii.  and  viii.  together.  But  the  death  of  Christ  closed 
the  earthly  history  of  Scripture,  till  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come 
in  His  glory.  Hence  Stephen,  summing  up  that  history  from 
Abraham,  when  the  promises  began,  ehows  the  law  broken,  the 
prophets  killed,  the  Just  One  betrayed  and  murdered,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  resisted ;  and  then  sees  the  Son  of  man  standing 
at  the  right  hand  of  God.  He  had  taken  His  heavenly  place, 
though  not  yet  set  down.  Now  He  sits  at  God's  ^  right  hand  till 
His  enemies  are  made  His  footstool,  having  by  one  offering  per- 
fected for  ever  {ug  to  SiTivixh)  them  that  are  sanctified.  It  was  the 
time  of  the  church,  His  body,  and  the  habitation  of  God  through 
the  Spirit.  Hence  the  Son  of  man  is  no  longer  spoken  of  save 
as  giving  Him  His  place  on  high  (Heb.  ii.  6).  But  as  soon  as  I 
come  to  the  Eevelation,  what  Christ  had  declared  before  the 
high  priest,  partly  as  seen  by  Stephen  and  taught  in  Heb.  ii.,  the 
accomplishment  of  Ps.  ex.  is,  as  to  the  latter  part,  brought  out 
prophetically  in  xiv.,  coming  as  Judge  for  the  ripe  harvest  of 
earth  and  the  vintage  of  God's  wrath  (14-20).  We  find  Him 
judging  the  church  as  responsible  on  earth  in  chap.  i.     But  from 

^  Christ  had  interceded  for  them  on  the  cross,  to  which  Acts  iii.  is  the 
answer  ;  but  this  also,  Christ  glorified,  is  rejected  ;  and  so  all  man's  history  closes 
ill  Stephen,  and  He  sits  down  till  Christ's  enemies  are  made  His  footstool. 


Acts  vii,  to  Eevelation  He  is  never  spoken  of  as  Son  of  man, 
save  that  Ps.  viii.  itself  is  quoted  (Heb.  ii.),  to  show  where  we  are 
in  this  history.     Even  then  He  is  not  called  so. 

I  may  briefly  refer  to  some  other  points  where  this  unity  of 
mind  is  developed.  The  three  great  feasts  of  Israel,  ordinances 
which  pointed  to  the  great  principles  and  power  of  the  gather- 
ing of  God's  people.  There  were  other  feasts :  the  Sabbath,  a 
sign  of  the  covenant  made  with  them,  but  also  tl>at  His  people 
are  in  due  time  to  enter  into  God's  rest ;  here  that  of  the  first 
creation,  for  us  of  the  new  creation,  as  risen  :  the  new  moon — 
a  sign,  I  doubt  not,  of  the  restoration  of  Israel,  as  the  tenth 
day  of  the  seventh  month  was  of  their  future  mourning,  and 
entering  into  the  delivering  power  of  the  atonement  ;  but  on 
these  I  do  not  here  enter.  At  the  three  other  feasts,  Passover 
(with:  unleavened  bread),  Pentecost,  and  Tabernacles,  all  Israel 
was  to  go  up  to  the  place  where  God  had  put  His  name.  FuU 
of  interest  as  they  are  in  themselves,  I  must  now  confine  myself 
to  them,  as  forming  a  chain  of  unity  in  the  history. 

Passover  has  an  unquestionably  historical  character.  It  was 
"anight  much  to  be  remembered,"  when,  protected  by  the  blood 
from  judgment,  they  ate  their  unleavened  bread  in  haste,  pre- 
paring to  depart  out  of  Egypt.  There  is  no  evidence  that  I  am 
aware  of  that  they  kept  it  after  Sinai  (Numb,  ix.)  till  they  M'ere 
in  Canaan.  Those  born  in  the  w^ilderness  Avere  not  fitted  to  do 
so,  being  uncircumcised  until  across  Jordan ;  when,  under  Joshua, 
they  were,  they  did  so  (a  very  instructive  figure,  but  a  little 
beyond  my  purpose  now).  I  only  add,  it  is  only  when  dead  and 
risen  with  Christ  we  are  circumcised,  knowing  Miiat  it  is,  and 
"the  reproach  of  Egypt  rolled  away."  Patience  and  proving 
in  the  wilderness  does  not  belong  to  this.  Hezekiah  kept  it, 
and  Josiah  kept  it,  as  it  had  not  been  kept  for  long  years.  This 
criminal  neglect  of  Israel  is  constantly  used  as  an  evidence  by 
the  Germans  that  the  law  was  not  given. 

It  was  clearly  established,  in  commemoration  of  God's  sparing 


tlie  people  when  judging  Egypt  and  Pharaoh  at  the  time  of  their 
deliverance  from  the  bondage  they  were  in.  So  it  was  ordained 
to  be  kept,  and,  as  far  as  kept,  was  so.  In  Deut.  xvi.  it  will  be 
found  to  have  a  peculiar  character ;  for  there  the  three  great 
feasts  are  spoken  of  in  connection  with  the  state  of  soul  under 
the  effect  of  that  which  they  figure.  In  the  Passover,  the 
unleavened  bread,  type  of  holiness  and  the  absence  of  sin,  is  the 
bread  of  affliction ;  and  they  were  to  turn  to  Him  in  the  morning 
and  go  to  tlieir  tents,  though  the  feast  lasted  seven  days.  There 
is  no  thought  of  common  joy,  as  in  Pentecost  and  Tabernacles, 
though  in  these  in  different  measure.  AVhen  in  presence  of 
judgment,  though  spared,  holiness  is  bread  of  affliction,  the 
spirit  of  repentance  is  the  form  of  purity,  and  it  is  necessarily 
solemn  and  individual.  But  the  great  idea  of  security  from 
God's  judgment  was  there  in  the  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb  : 
afterwards,  of  course,  only  a  memorial  of  it.  Every  Christian 
knows  that  Christ  was  the  true  Passover.  The  chief  priests 
sought  to  hinder  His  being  taken  on  the  feast  day  ;  but  God's 
purpose  did  not  await  their  decision,  and  on  the  day  of  the  Pass- 
over He  was  sacrificed  as  the  true  paschal  Lamb,  "  the  Lamb 
of  God,"  to  take  away  sin.  Eating  at  table  with  His  disciples,-^ 
the  Lord  Himself  so  instructs  us  :  "  With  desire  have  I  desired  to 
eat  this  passover  with  you  before  I  suffer  ;  for  I  say  unto  you,  I 
will  not  any  more  eat  thereof  tiU  it  be  fulfilled  in  the  kingdom 
of  God"  (Luke  xxii.  15,  16)  :  So  that  we  have  a  clear  instance 
of  the  intention  of  God  in  an  institution  formally  established  by 
Himself,  by  the  hand  of  Moses,  celebrating  their  escape  from 
judgment  in  Egypt,  yet  definitely  purposed  to  be  indicative  of  a 
better  and  more  lasting  deliverance  from  the  bondage  of  sin  and 
Satan,  and  more  directly  from  the  judgment  of  God,  by  which 
we  were  bound  down  under  its  consequences.    "  Christ,  our  pass- 

^  For  the  Jews  the  same  day,  though  not  for  us,  and  at  tlie  time  when  leaven 
was  put  away  for  the  feast. 


over,  is  sacrificed  for  us."  When  God  sees  that  blood,  He  passes 
over,  where  faith  has  believed  the  word. 

Pentecost  we  know  to  have  been  connected  with  the 
coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was  the  feast  of  first-fruits  (not 
the  first  of  the  first-fruits,  the  wave-sheaf  the  morrow  after  the 
Sabbath,  that  is  Christ  risen  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  but) 
when  the  harvest  was  reaped.  Here,  leaven  was  to  be  in  the 
two  cakes  offered  (for  sin  is  always  found  in  man)  even  if 
offered  to  God  in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  At  the  same 
time  a  sin-offering  was  to  be  offered  to  meet  this  defect,  not 
offered  in  the  previous  case  of  the  wave-sheaf;  but  they  could 
not  be  burned  themselves  as  a  sweet  savour  to  Jehovah.  Then, 
as  it  was  connected  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  were  directed,  in 
Deut.  xvi.,  to  rejoice  together  in  grace,  and  bring  a  free-will 
offering,  according  as  Jehovah  had  helped  them.  All  this 
abides  in  its  true  force — its  purport  accomplished  at  Pentecost, 
and  its  effect  abiding  to  this  day.  Was  it  arranged  of  man  for 
the  future  in  its  institution  ?  or  was  its  accomplished  antitype, 
the  Holy  Ghost  come  down  from  heaven,  arranged  by  man  on 
that  day  ?  We  have  it  in  Leviticus  :  we  have  it,  with  other 
details,  in  Deuteronomy  :  one.  Lev.  xxiii.,  a  history  of  the  whole 
time  from  Egypt  till  the  Lord  comes  again  at  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles  ;  the  other,  Deut.  xvi.,  the  characteristic  detail  of 
which  gives  the  moral  import  of  the  observance.  If  not 
arranged  by  man,  it  is  a  testimony  to  that  purpose  of  God  which 
makes  the  whole  book  one  in  the  revelation  of  His  mind. 

We  have  yet  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  but  without  any 
antitype  at  all,  which  makes  it  the  more  remarkable.  This 
was  for  the  land  solely.  They  were  to  dwell  in  booths, 
a  testimony  that  Israel  had  been  wanderers  ;  but  that  now 
the  promises  were  fulfilled,  and  that  they  were  at  peace 
in  their  land,  never,  as  Amos  says,  to  be  plucked  up 
any  more  ;  and,  as  Ezekiel  has  it,  gathered  back  all  of  them. 
It  was  to  be  kept  after  the  harvest  and  the  vintage ;  in  result, 


when  ingathering  and  judgment  were  accomplished.  We  have 
seen  in  Eev.  xiv.  the  Son  of  Man  reaping  the  harvest  of  the  earth, 
and  treading  the  wine-press  of  the  wrath  of  God,  In  this  char- 
acter He  comes,  chapter  xix.  In  this  character  He  is  prophesied 
of,  Isaiah  Ixiii.,  when  He  comes  in  dyed  garments  from  Bozrah, 
when  the  day  of  vengeance  is  in  His  heart  and  He  treads  the 
peoples  in  His  anger.  Compare  Isaiah  xxxiv.,  xxvi.  9,  and 
Zeph.  iii,  8  :  and  in  each  case  the  promises  to  Israel  following. 

How  could  the  Lord  keep  this  feast?  He  could  not.  He  will 
appear  and  show  Himself  plainly  enough  to  the  world  when  He 
executes  judgment  on  the  quick,  and  so  we  find  it  in  John  vii., 
"  If  Thou  do  these  things,"  said  His  unbelieving  brethren, "  show 
Thyself  to  the  world."  Then  Jesus  said  unto  them,  "  My  time 
is  not  yet  come,  but  your  time  is  always  ready.  Go  ye  up  unto 
this  feast.  I  go  not  up^  unto  this  feast,  for  My  time  is  not  yet 
full  come." 

But,  then,  there  was  another  thing  in  this  feast,  an  eighth 
day,  a  specially  solemn  day  ;  it  reached  beyond  the  seven  full 
days  of  this  world's  week  to  the  first  day  of  another  which 
began  afresh.  On  that  day,  "  that  great  day  of  the  feast,  Jesus 
stood  and  cried,  saying.  If  any  man  thirst,  let  him  come  unto  IVIe 
and  drink.  He  that  believeth  on  Me  (as  the  Scripture  said)  out 
of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water.  But  this  spake 
He  of  the  Spirit  which  they  that  believe  on  Him  should  receive, 
for  the  Spirit  was  not  yet  [given]  because  Jesus  was  not  yet  glori- 
fied "  (John  vii).  He  could  not  associate  Himself  witfti  Israel  at 
this  feast,  but  He  could  tell  them  on  that  special  day,  jvhich  went 
beyond  the  order  of  this  world,  that  the  Holy  Gho^t  M'ould  be 
given  consequent  on  His  taking  a  heavenly  and  glolrious  place 
as  man,  with  which  that  Holy  Spirit  associates  us.  \  With  the 
rest  of  Israel  on  earth  comes  in,  what  is  yet  a  hope  for  us  too, 
association  with  Christ  in  heavenly  glory,  as  shown  in  its 
manifestation  in  the  kingdom  on  the  mount  of  transjfiguration. 

^  The  "  jet  "  is  not  geuuiue. 


of  which  the  Holy  Ghost  is  given  to  us  as  earnest  while  Christ 
is  entered  as  a  forerunner,  expecting  till  His  enemies  shall  be 
made  His  footstool.  Then  He  shall  have  all  things  gathered 
together  in  one  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  and  then  shall  be  fulfilled 
in  Israel,  and  far  better  for  us,  the  declaration  of  Deut.  xvi.  14  : 
*'  And  thou  shalt  rejoice  ....  because  Jehovah  thy  God  shall 
bless  thee  in  all  thine  increase,  and  in  all  the  work  of  thine 
hands  ;  therefore  thou  shalt  surely  rejoice."  It  was  a  feast 
hardly  kept,  and  no  wonder,  in  all  their  history ;  in  Solomon's 
dedication,  lost  in  the  general  joy,  so  to  speak,  and  observed  in 
Nehemiah's  time  (chap.  viii.  14),  when  they  had  learnt,  though 
sore  smitten,  to  sing  again  David's  song:  "His  mercy  endureth 
for  ever."  Is  all  this  without  a  purpose  or  an  order,  in  Leviti- 
cus, Deuteronomy,  and  in  the  Lord's  remarkable  conduct  and 
words  in  John?  while  all  the  testimony  of  the  Lord's  judg- 
ments, and  of  the  rest  of  heart,  far  too  numerous  to  quote  here, 
confirm  the  truth  of  it,  and  lead,  as  it  will,  to  the  full  singing  of 
that  lovely  word  so  repeated  in  the  end  of  the  Psalms,  i'npn  D^iyfj, 
"His  mercy  endureth  for  ever:"  while  we  have  better  things  in 
glory  with  Him  where  He  is  gone ;  yet  all  things  to  be  gathered 
into  one  under  Him  "  for  the  administration  of  the  fulness  of 
time"  (Eph.  i.  10). 

The  Sacrifices  and  other  Types  of  the  Old  Testament  con- 
nect the  whole  Bible  from  Abel  to  Christ  evidently,  Moses 
made  the  tabernacle  after  the  pattern  shown  him  in  the  Mount. 
There  was  therefore  a  purpose  and  intention  in  it.  Christ  has 
passed  through^  the  heavens,  as  Aaron  entered  into  the  most 
holy  place.  The  history  is  taken  up,  not  only  in  the  Hebre\\s 
where  the  whole  is  gone  into,  but  in  2  Cor.  iii.  And,  as  to 
Hebrews,  it  is  not  a  partisan  confirming  Jewish  ceremonial ;  but 
while  treating  it  as  of  God,  putting  it  wholly  aside,  and  contrast- 
ing it  with  Christianity,  the  heavenly  thing.  The  whole  system 
is  judged;  "a  shadow,  indeed,  of  good  things  to  come,"  and  yet 

^  Not  into,  as  in  tbe  English  version  (Heb.  iv.) 


fully  recognised ;  and,  observe,  not  the  temple  which  they  had 
before  their  eyes,  and  which  men  would  have  thought  of  (this  is 
never  alluded  to  in  Hebrews),  but  the  tabernacle  in  the  wilder- 
ness ;  for  there  the  Christian  is,  though  with  a  heavenly  calling. 
It  had  a  full  moral  and  spiritual  signification  for  us ;  yet  was  all 
contrast,  a  veil  that  closed  the  way  to  the  sanctuary,  not  a  rent 
one  which  opened  the  way  in  ;  a  priest  sitting  down  because  all 
His  sacrifice  work  was  finished,  not  standing  because  it  never 
was  accomplished. 

The  whole  history,  I  may  say,  of  the  wilderness  is  re- 
corded in  1  Cor.  x.,  and  applied  to  Christianity.  We  have  the 
ark  in  Joshua;  under  Eli;  and  David;  and  the  history  of 
Aaron's  rod,  and  the  manna  confirmed  in  Solomon's  temple,  and 
that  by  an  allusion,  as  to  a  well-known  thing,  the  strongest  con- 
firmation possible ;  though  having  a  moral  force  that  the  means 
of  journeying  were  gone  when  the  rest  was  come,  2  Chron.  v.  10. 
The  temple  order,  substituted  by  David  and  Solomon  for  the 
tabernacle,  is  found,  though  slighted,  and  the  temple  defiled,  all 
through  the  Kings.  Now,  though  fifteen  centuries  separated  the 
establishment  of  the  two  systems,  the  first  has  far  more  sense  and 
import  now  to  them  that  understand,  than  they  had  then.  They 
were  "shadows  of  goods  things  to  come,"  but  " the  body  is  ot 
Christ,"  Col.  ii.  17.  This  applies  to  every  part  of  the  ordering 
of  the  tabernacle,  where  though  priests  could  go  and  others 
could  not,  yet  in  contrast,  as  I  have  said ;  for  the  veil  is  rent, 
and  the  holy  and  holy  of  holies  have,  so  to  speak,  become  one. 
What  the  altar,  what  the  laver  meant,  details  alluded  to,  I 
doubt  not,  in  John  xiii.,  has  its  full  force  now.  Tlie  mind 
Mdiich  gave  Moses  the  pattern  in  the  mount  thought  of 
Christianity  in  giving  it,  and  Christianity,  Miiile  setting  the 
shadows  aside,  more  than  fulfilled  their  import. 

With  THE  History,  if  less  obvious,  it  was  equally  the  case, 
"  All  these  things  happened  unto  them  for  ensamples  (ruTo/),  and 
they  are  written  for  our  admonition,  upon  whom  the  ends  of  the 


world  are  come"  (1  Cor.  x.  11).  Hence  we  fiud  them  kuit,  as 
they  are  found  in  the  Pentateuch,  with  the  constant  instructions 
of  the  new,  and  the  aptness  seen  by  every  intelligent  Christian  ; 
indeed  the  whole  history  acquires  its  value  from  its  present 
application  to  everyday  life,  with  the  utmost  and  most  instruc- 
tive exactness.  Historically  the  accounts  of  the  Pentateuch  are 
referred  to  and  used  for  the  judgment  and  instruction  of  Israel, 
as  all  the  dates  at  which  the  Psalms  may  have  been  written,  as 
xviii.,  cxiv.,  Ixxviii.,  xcix.,  cv.,  cvi.,  Ixxxi.  So  the  history  of 
Judges  in  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  The  minuteness  of  the  allusion  in  Psalm 
Ixxx.  shows  more  than  any  quotation  how  their  minds  were 
imbued  with  the  history,  God  using  it  by  His  Spirit.  God  is 
appealed  to  as  Shepherd  of  Israel,  and  leading  Joseph  like  a 
flock  to  shine  forth  from  between  the  cherubim  ;  and,  it  is 
added,  "  Before  Ephraim  and  Benjamin  and  Manasseh."  Why 
these  tribes  ?  They  were  the  three  next  the  ark  at  the  rear  of 
the  tabernacle.  The  allusions  are  numberless.  The  spirit  of 
the  people  from  David  to  Babylon  was  filled — saturated — with 
the  history  in  the  Pentateuch,  Samuel,  and  the  Judges.  The 
public  neglect  of  Jehovah  was  great,  and  the  judgments  many  ; 
but  their  recollections  and  their  desires  lived  in  the  history 
(see  Judges  vi.  13)  we  learn  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  what 
their  prophets  told  them  of  the  future.  It  was  what  made  them 
know  God. 

If  we  turn  to  the  Sacrifices  we  find  the  same  neglect  of  God 
as  in  everything  ;  but  the  full  intention  and  unity  of  intention  is 
evident,  indeed  plainly  stated.  We  find  it,  from  Abel  onward, 
the  only  legitimate  ground  of  access  to  God.  "  Without  shed- 
ding of  blood  is  no  remission."  "  It  is  the  blood  that  makes 
atonement  for  the  soul."  Sacrifices  were  offered  to  God,  but  for 
men  ;  worship  was  connected  with  an  altar,  a  deep  and  import- 
ant principle  notified  to  us  in  Cain  and  Abel,  and  in  the  patri- 
archs ;  nor  in  the  tabernacle  service  could  any  strange  fire  be 
used  to  burn  the  incense,  the  neglect  of  \vhich  cost  Nadab  and 


Abilm  tlieir  Hves,  and  closed  the  entry  of  the  holiest  to  Aaron 
save  on  the  great  day  of  atonement.  Sin  and  death  had  come 
in ;  and  death  and  the  acknowledgment  of  sin  mnst  come  in  for 
man  to  approach  God  ;  and,  when  all  was  ordered  of  God,  a  clean 
and  spotless  victim  must  be  offered.  Such  offerings  occur,  and 
mark  the  career  of  the  godly  (the  Abrahams,  whose  earthly  life 
was  a  tent,  his  divine  life  an  altar),'^  and  repeated  too  often  to  call 
for  any  individual  notice.  When  all  was  ordained  in  connection 
with  the  tabernacle,  and  detail  entered  into,  there  was  the  burnt- 
offering  which  was  on  the  ground  of  sin  being  there  and  atone- 
ment made  (though  not  for  particular  transgressions),  but  was 
all  burnt  to  God,  an  absolute  sweet  savour;  the  meat-offering,  in 
which  was  no  leaven  (figure  of  sin),  but  all  kneaded  witli  oil 
and  anointed  with  oil,  and  that  in  each  minutest  part ;  much 
frankincense,  but  all  burnt  to  God,  fully  tested  by  holy  judg- 
ment and  only  sweet  savour.  Then  others  feasted  on  what  was 
slain,  as  did  the  offerer,  priest  and  priests,  and  God  too,  while 
the  same  abiding  law  held  good  as  to  the  blood  and  fat ;  and, 
lastly,  when  there  had  been  actual  sins,  there  were  offerings  for 
them  confessed  on  the  victim's  head  ;  and  if  the  blood  was  carried 
into  the  sanctuary,  the  body  burnt  without  the  camp.  If  the 
efficacy  of  the  atoning  blood  went  into  heaven,  the  victim  was 
rejected  outside  the  camp,  an  earthly  religion  (connection  of  a 
people  with  God  upon  earth)  ceased,  and  was  impossible.  And 
especially  on  the  great-  day  of  atonement  the  blood  was  carried 
into  the  holiest  of  all — God's  own  presence,  according  to  what 
He  was,  not  merely  man's  responsibility  met  by  what  was  done 
on  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  without.  Besides  this  there  was  a 
sacrifice  connected  with  their  jouiney  through  the  wilderness, 
for  any  uncleanness  contracted  there,  unfitting  any,  otherwise 
entitled,  to  go  up  to  the  worship  of  God.  This  last  w^as  carried 
out,  not  by  tlie  shedding  or  sprinkling  blood  again,  but  by 
sprinkling  with  living  water,  into  which  the  ashes  of  the  burnt 

^  He  had  none  in  Egypt,  nor  till  he  returned  to  Bethel. 


heifer  had  been  iDut.  The  blood  had  been  sprinkled  seven  times 
where  God  met  the  people.  All  this  had  a  purpose  and  a  mean- 
ing. The  Prophets  and  Psalms  refer  to  it  as,  with  more  or  less 
order,  it  was  historically  continued.  The  resting  on  the  mere 
outward  offering  with  an  unbroken  heart  is  judged  ;  but,  as  in 
Isaiah  liii.,  there  was  One  stricken  for  the  transgression  of  God's 
people  who  made  His  soul  an  offering  for  sin,  offered  to  God 
because  sin  was  there  ;  but  a  whole  burnt-offering  of  a  perfect 
sweet  savour,  God  glorified  in  Him  :  as  the  meat-offering,  pure 
as  man  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  anointed  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  all  He  did  by  the  Sphit,  all  sweet  odour  of  grace 
going  up  to  and  referring  to  God  above,  though  priests  may 
scent  its  sweetness,  fully  tested  by  the  fire  of  God's  judgment ; 
no  leaven  was  there,  all  was  a  sweet  savour  to  God.  We  feed 
on  this  sacrifice  as  the  peace-offering,  though  the  life  and  its 
energies  were  all  offered  to  God — feed  on  it  indeed,  as  bread 
come  down  from  heaven,  and  as  a  sacrifice  in  death,  only  that 
death  is  become  sure  life  to  us,  and  what  was  absolute  ruin  be- 
fore is  now  redemption  and  life,  and  we  drink  the  blood  too  ;  not 
only  atonement  made  for  our  sins  and  guilt  taken  away  in  our 
believing,  but  God  perfectly  glorified  in  His  nature  and  in- 
trinsic righteousness,  measured  by  what  He  is  and  not  merely 
by  what  we  owe,  and  all  our  sins  gone  where  they  never  can  be 
found  again.  Such  was  the  special  offering  of  the  great  day  of 

There  is  for  the  believer  no  more  conscience  of  sins  ;  he 
is  perfected  for  ever  as  to  his  conscience,  while  provision  is 
made  for  restoring  communion  if  we  have  defiled  ourselves, 
the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  word  restoring  the  self-judging  soid 
in  virtue  of  that  which  shows  sins  for  ever  put  away.  He 
appeared  once  in  the  end  of  the  world,  to  put  away  sin  by 
the  sacrifice  of  Himself  (complete  in  result  in  the  new  heavens 
and  the  new  earth) ;  and  as  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once 
to  die,  and  after  that  the  judgment,  so  Christ  was  once  offered 

1 66  HA  VE  WE  A  REVEL  A  TION  FROM  GOD  ? 

to  bear  tlie  siiis  of  many.  God  is  perfectly  glorified  in  His 
nature  through  redemption,  and  the  believer's  sins  gone  for 
ever,  so  that  he  has  boldness  to  enter  into  the  holiest.  I  cannot, 
of  course,  here  enlarge  on  so  wide  a  subject  as  the  sacrifices,  pro- 
foundly interesting  as  it  may  be.  What  I  have  here  to  note  is, 
that  the  word  of  God  affords  us,  from  Abel's  time,  a  distinct 
line  of  thought,  brought  out  in  detail  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and 
prophetically  applied  to  God's  coming  Servant  in  Isaiah^  spoken 
of  in  the  Psalms  in  words  used  by  the  Lord  Himself  on  the 
cross  ;  and  then  in  the  Gospels  plainly  declared  "  the  Lamb  of 
God  that  takes  away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  the  Son  of  man  come 
to  give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many ;  and  reasoned  on,  as 
every  one  knows,  in  the  Epistles,  showing  Christ  who  died  for 
our  sins,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  a 
Lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot.  The  lamb  of  Abel's 
faith  is  the  Lamb  in  the  midst  of  the  throne,  whose  bride  the 
heavenly  Jerusalem  is,  Himself  the  light  and  glory  of  it — "  a  lamb 
as  it  had  been  slain." 

The  same  divine  thought  runs  through  Scripture  from  the 
beginning  of  Genesis  to  the  end  of  Eevelation ;  the  divine 
thought,  prefigured  in  Abel,  in  the  Exodus,  and  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  tabernacle,  sung  in  holy  strains  in  the  Psalms, 
prophesied  of  by  the  prophets  of  God,  even  to  the  price  He  was 
to  be  sold  for,  and  accomplished  in  the  Word  made  flesh,  and  un- 
folded in  the  instructions  of  the  Holy  Ghost — God's  precious 
Lamb,  whose  blood  cleanses  us  from  all  sin.  Was  it  a  compiler  of 
fragmentary  documents  in  Ezra's  time,  or  God,  who  has  taught 
us  all  this,  one  immense  moral  truth  from  Abel  to  the  consum- 
mation of  all  things,  the  foundation  of  the  stability  of  the  new 
heavens  and  the  new  earth  which  makes  grace  righteousness — 
the  righteousness  of  God,  and  sets  man  at  His  right  hand  in 
glory,  opening  heaven  to  us  now,  and  in  time  taking  us  there? 
It  was  God's  thought,  God's  work  of  love,  and  God's  revelation, 


never  lost  sight  of,  as  it  never  will  be  when  even  the  kingdom 
shall  be  given  up  that  God  may  be  all  and  all. 

These  may  suffice  as  illustrations  of  how  divine  thought  runs 
as  a  continued  stream  of  purpose  through  the  Bible  as  a  whole. 
I  insist  upon  its  bemg  many  books,  by  many  authors,  collected 
no  man  knows  by  whom  (not  the  "learned  Germans"  more  than 
I  or  Mr.  Smith),  but  proved  to  be  divinely  inspired,  individually 
and  collectively,  by  the  divine  oneness  which  pervades  their  con- 
tents, and  the  more  from  their  being  many  authors  in  remote 
ages.  But  I  will  now  take  two  special  parts  of  the  great  collec- 
tion ;  for  collection,  whoever  made  it,  every  one  admits  it  is,  the 
Lord  Himself  setting  His  seal  of  acceptance  on  it  as  such — I 
mean  the  Gospels  and  Psalms — to  show  the  divine  mind  in 

The  traditions  of  Mark's  Gospel,  composed  at  Eome  from 
Peter's  testimony  as  its  source,  and  Luke  more  or  less  from 
Paul's,  I  attach  no  importance  to.  It  is  quite  alike  to  me 
whether  a  secondhand  tradition  (not  very  early  either)  be  true 
or  false,  if  an  apostolic  source  be  true  or  not.  The  question  is 
whether  God  is  the  source.  If  so,  the  human  instrument  is  of 
no  moment.  Mark  was  intimate  probably  with  Peter,  and 
certainly  Luke  with  Paul ;  but  the  latter  could  not  have  him- 
self given  testimony  from  personal  knowledge  to  him,  and 
Luke  attributes  it  to  another  source.  This  is  true,  that  the 
tone  and  import  of  Luke's  Gospel  falls  in  more  with  Paul's 
ministry  of  grr.ce  to  all;  but  all  the  preaching  in  the  Acts 
(and  we  have  only  sermons  to  Jews  from  Peter  and  Paul)  is 
based  on  the  commission  in  Luke,  for  they  are  distinct  in  each 

It  is  very  doubtful  if  the  Epistles  of  Jude  and  James  are 
from  apostles.  This  is  not  the  real  question.  That  the  apostles 
had  a  special  mission,  whether  the  twelve  or  Paul,  for  these 
also  are  distinct,  is  sure  to  every  Christian  ;  but  if  God  inspired 
others,  their  word  was  just  as  sure ;  and  if  an  apostle  spoke  or 


wrote  or  acted  not  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  this  was  not 
the  word  of  God.  Those  who  believe  in  inspiration  have,  just 
as  these  historical  critics,  rested  on  traditional  circumstances  or 
proofs,  or  human  evidence,  strong  indeed,  I  admit,  for  authen- 
ticity and  the  letter,  but  which  leaves  the  real  question.  Are  they 
inspired  of  God  ?  untouched. 

The  proof  of  Scripture  in  this  respect  is  in  Scripture,  in  the 
power  of  the  word  wielded  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  When  in 
that  power  it  reaches  the  heart  and  conscience,  its  character, 
its  divine  character,  is  known,  not  only  in  the  particular  point 
in  which  it  reaches  them,  but  as  to  the  true  power  and  character 
of  that  which  has  done  so.  The  woman  of  Samaria  does  not  say 
when  thus  reached,  "  What  you  say  is  true,"  but,  "  Sir,  I  perceive 
that  thou  art  a  prophet."  What  He  said  came  from  God.  His 
character  and  word  were  known  to  her.  So  it  is  with  the  Bible 
when  a  man  is  taught  of  God.  It  is  recognised  as  His  word,  as 
Christ  was  recognised  by  those  whose  eyes  were  opened  to  see 
what  was  divine.  Human  testimony  may  prove  the  folly  of 
human  doubt,  but  no  more,  and  so  be  useful;  but  divine 
operation  alone  gives  divine  faith.  "He  hath  opened  mine 
eyes."  When  men  believed  only  through  proofs  to  man,  by 
miracles,  Jesus  did  not  commit  Himself  to  them  ;  He  knew  what 
was  in  man.  It  was  man's  judgment  about  Him,  very  justly 
formed,  but  only  man's  judgment,  no  revelation  of  the  Son  of 
God  to  the  soul :  this  is  by  the  word  through  the  operation  of 
God;  and  then  a  man  is  born  of  God  and  sees.  But  I  must 
p\irsue  my  inquiry. 

As  to  the  Gospels  then,  they  carry  their  own  testimony 
with  them.  Men  may  make  Harmonies  or  seek  to  prove 
discrepancies,  or  give  us  Eusebius'  account  of  traditions,  or, 
if  we  are  to  believe  Eusebius,  the  foolish  old  man  Papias' 
account  of  his  pleasure  in  hearing  legends  of  what  Christ 
said — a  good  pious  old  man,  I  doubt  not.  One  has  only  to 
read  the  Apocryphal  Gospels  to  see  what  they  are  worth,  the 


utter  nonsense  that  is  in  them.^  But  each  Gospel  bears  its  dis- 
tinct character,  proving  itself  and  completing  the  others.  For 
while  each  can  give  us  enough  to  show  what  the  blessed  Lord's 
life  was,  yet  the  account  would  not  be  complete  according  to 
divine  thought  without  all.  First,  there  is  a  characteristic  dif- 
ference between  John's  and  the  Synoptical  Gospels.  They  pre- 
sent Christ  to  be  received  as  Son  of  David,  Son  of  man,  though 
of  course  the  Christ  and  the  prophet-servant,  and  in  all  He  is 
rejected.  In  John,  being  God  and  the  Son  manifested  in  the 
world,  the  real  ground  of  His  rejection,  we  read  in  the  first 
chapter  that  the  world  knew  Him  not,  and  His  own  received  Him 
not,  and  they,  the  Jews,  are  treated  as  reprobate  all  through,  and 
He  is  always  come  into  the  world,  and  sovereign  and  quickening 
grace  alone  leads  to  His  reception.  And  what  He  is  in  person, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost's  coming,  are  fully  treated  of 

But  let  us  see  briefly  these  characteristics,  so  as  to  show,  in 
some  measure,  the  divine  completeness  of  the  whole  ;  and  it  is 
not  pretended  there  was  a  clever  compiler  of  the  four  here.  I 
can  only  touch  on  a  few  leading  heads. 

In  ]\Iatthew  He  comes  as  Messiah,  Emmanuel,  Jehovah, 
to  His  people,  yet  if  Messiah,  of  course,  as  Son  of  David. 
Hence  His  genealogy  is  traced  to  Abraham  and  David,  the 
great  vessels  of  the  Jewish  promise  of  the  Seed.  He  was 
Emmanuel,  Jesus,  that  is,  Jah  Hoshea,  Jehovah  the  Saviour, 
for  He  shall  save  His  people  from  their  sins.  Born  at 
Bethlehem  according  to  prophecy,  the  anti-king  seeks  His 
destruction,  and  He  flies  to  Egypt,  called  back  out  from  thence 
to  be  the  true  Son  of  God  here  below.  Then  John  the  Baptist 
executes  his  mission.  Both  here  and  with  the  Magi,  while  the 
Jews  are  the  immediate  object,  yet  a  remnant  only  is  owned 

^  One  tells  us  that  Jesus  was  as  a  child  the  death  of  so  many  who  meddled  with 
Him,  that  His  mother  kept  Him  in  the  house  at  last.  He  was  making  mud  birds 
one  Sabbath  and  ponds,  and  a  big  boy  came  and  broke  His  ponds.  The  birds  took 
life  and  flew  away,  and  the  Child  said,  "As  you  have  dried  My  ponds,  you  will  be 
dried  up  ;"  and  so  he  dried  up  and  died. 


in  Israel  morally,  judgment  is  at  hand,  and  grace  can  make  of 
stones  children  to  Abraham,  and  in  the  Magi  the  Gentiles  are 
owned  but  in  connection  with  one  born  king  of  the  Jews. 

Tlien  Christ  takes  His  place  among  this  remnant,  and  imme- 
diately heaven  is  opened.  He  is  anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
the  Father  owns  Him  as  His  Son.  The  whole  Trinity  is  for  the 
first  time  fully  revealed,  and  man's  place  (for  us  in  redemption), 
according  to  God's  counsels,  made  good  in  Him  when  He  takes 
His  place  amongst  them,  Son  of  God  there.  Owned  such  He  goes 
up,  led  of  the  Spirit,  to  meet  Satan ;  for  us  refuses,  if  Son,  to  leave 
obedience  in  His  taken  place  of  servant,  and  overcomes  Satan 
for  us  in  perfectly  waiting  on  God's  will  to  act,  overcomes  his 
wiles,  and  sends  away  the  adversary,  and  then  goes  to  Galilee  to 
the  poor  of  the  flock,  calls  disciples,  and  all  the  history  of  His 
service  in  Matthew  is  given  in  verse  23  of  chap.  iv. 

Then  He  describes  the  character  of  those  who  would  have 
part  in  the  kingdom  without  speaking  of  redemption.  Israel 
was  on  the  way  with  Ood  to  judgment  (comp.  Luke  xii.  49-59), 
and  if  they  did  not  agree  would  be  cast  into  prison,  and  not 
come  out  till  they  had  paid  the  last  farthing.  And  there  they 
are  to  this  day. 

In  viii.  He  is  Jehovah,  and  the  Gentiles  are  again  noticed. 
In  ix.  we  have  the  character  of  His  ministry,  which  is  forgiveness 
aiid  power  in  grace  (according  to  Ps.  ciii.),  and  characterised  by 
grace.  In  x.  mission  exclusively  to  Israel  in  His  own  time,  then,  . 
t'o  the  end  of  15 ;  after  He  was  gone  from  16,  and  that  to  the  end 
till  the  Son  of  man  should  be  come.  In  xi.  John  the  Baptist's 
ministry  and  His  own  are  both  rejected  by  Israel,  and  He  takes 
the  character  of  Son  of  God,  unknown  because  of  His  person, 
and  alone  able  to  reveal  the  Father  to  the  comfort  of  the  heav}'- 
laden,  and  as  the  obedient  man  showing  the  yoke  they  must 
bear  to  get  rest.  In  xii.  the  Jews  are  formally  judged,  and  He 
disclaims  any  relationship  on  earth  except  that  produced  by  the 
word.     In  xiii.  He  seeks  fruit  no  more  in  His  vineyard,  but  as 


Son  of  man  carries  out  the  seed  which  was  to  produce  fruit ; 
but  the  field  is  the  world  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  de- 
scribed;  that  is,  God's  kingdom  when  the  King  is  in  heaven," 
taking  the  place  of  His  presence  on  earth.  He  will  come  in 
judgment  as  Son  of  man,  and  the  righteous  shine  forth  as  the 
sun  in  the  Father's  kingdom. 

In  xiv.  He  still  continues  His  ministry  in  grace,  but  Israel 
and  man  are  judged  in  xv.,  and  grace  to  the  farthest  from  God 
according  to  Jewish  dispensation  vouchsafed  to  those  who  had 
no  promise  in  His  person.  In  xvi.  we  have  the  church  Christ 
builds  (founded  on  the  title  "  Son  of  the  Living  God,"  proved  in 
resurrection)  to  replace  Israel,  as  in  xiii.  the  kingdom  in  mystery, 
in  xvii  the  kingdom  in  glory.  The  disciples  are  forbidden  to 
say  any  more  He  is  the  Christ,  for  the  Son  of  man  must  suffer. 
In  xviiL,  to  the  end  of  xx.  28,  we  find  the  principles  which 
were  to  guide  the  disciples  and  characterise  their  walk  when 
He  was  gone — lowliness,  His  presence  among  them,  forgive- 
ness, judging  the  inward  man  of  the  heart  instead  of  observ- 
ing the  outward  law,  and  other  great  principles  of  conduct  and 

In  aU  the  Synoptics,  the  history  of  the  last  events,  another 
chapter  of  the  Lord's  history.  His  death  and  not  His  life,  be- 
gins with  the  blind  man  of  Jericho.  And  He  begins  by 
again  taking  the  character  of  Son  of  David,  and  presenting  him- 
self to  Jerusalem  as  such.  Then  the  Jews  and  their  various 
sects  come  up  one  after  another  and  are  judged.  The  testimony 
of  God  in  Judah  till  the  Lord  comes  (xxiv.  1-31),  with  exhorta- 
tions to  44 ;  the  judgment  of  Christendom  in  xxiv.  45  to  xxv. 
30,  and  31  to  the  end  the  judgment  of  the  Gentiles,  to  whom  the 
message  of  the  kingdom  had  been  sent  in  those  last  days ;  in  xxvi. 
xxvii.,  the  last  scenes,  in  which  He  is  specially  the  victim  here, 
led  to  the  slaughter  and  dumb  before  His  shearers,  and  every 
human  comfort  looked  for  in  vain,  the  Christ  the  Son  of  God 
but  henceforth  Son  of  man  in  glory,  the  veil  rent.     Then  His 


resurrection  and  joining  the  poor  of  the  flock  again  in  Galilee, 
but  no  ascension  :  the  twelve  being  sent  out  to  dsciple  and 
baptize  the  Gentiles,  a  commission  from  Jesus  rifsn,  of  the 
accomplishment  of  which  we  find  no  history  in  Scripture.  The 
mission  to  them  is  surrendered  to  Paul,  as  recorded,  ii  Gal.  ii. 

The  perpetual  quotation  of  and  reference  to  the  ^M  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  is  evident  to  the  most  careless  reade*,  with  ha, 
when  it  is  the  object  of  the  passage  cited,  otw;  when  it  itan  accom- 
plishment of  it,  TOTi  when  it  is  only  an  instance  of  the  thing.  I 
have  only  noticed  of  course  here  what  shows  a  perfect  vud  syste- 
matic course  of  teaching,  all  based  on  the  essential  chiracter  of 
the  Gospel  The  events  are  not  given  in  historical  orler  in  the 
life  of  the  Lord,  though  generally  following  it,  but  art  subjects 
treated  of.  The  whole  history  of  His  life  and  ministryis  in  one 
verse,  and  then  what  characterised  it, — the  mind  of  Cod  in  it. 
The  rationalist  may  search  very  imperfect  legends  how  it  origin- 
ated and  was  put  together,^  conjecture  or  reason  on  a  I'ebrew 
original  or  the  contrary,  and  the  Nazarene  Gospel.  The  Chris- 
tian taught  of  God  sees  with  perfect  certainty  the  chara-ter  of 
the  Lord  as  Messiah,  Emmanuel,  Jehovah,  a  Man  among;t  men, 
but  Son  of  God,  presented  to  Israel  with  all  the  principBS  He 
brought  as  such,  and  rejected  by  Israel  to  make  way  for  leeper 
counsels  and  a  better  srdvation  :  stating  indeed  a  heavenlyplace 
for  those  rejected  for  His  sake,  but  carrying  on  the  testing  (.ny, 
not  from  heaven,  but  from  resurrection. 

The  Gospel  of  Mark  I  need  not  dwell  on.  It  is  the  miiis- 
try  of  Christ,  and  is  more  exactly  in  chronological  order,  tie 
same  as  Luke  when  he  is  chronological,  but  not  calling  pr 
special  notice  for  the  purpose  for  which  I  comment  on  tie 
Gospels.  The  reader  may  notice  that  the  Lord's  life  closes  he^e 
too  with  Galilee,  as  far  as  the  Lord's  words  go  ;  xvi.  9-2f) 
giving  a  short  summary  of  what  is  recorded  in  Luke  and  John. 

I  turn  to  Luke,  but  only  for  some  brief  remarks,  with  a  vie\< 

1  If  any  one  be  curious,  he  may  read  Marsh's  conjectures. 


to  my  special  object.  It  begins  with  a  lovely  picture  of  the  godly 
remnant  in  Judah,  and  the  prophetic  Spirit  amongst  them, 
hidden  in  the  midst  of  the  abounding  iniquity  of  Israel ;  but 
where,  as  in  the  cave  of  AduUam,  a  godly  priest,  the  true  king, 
and  the  Spirit  of  prophecy  are  found.  But  the  Jews  are  under 
the  power  of  the  Eoman  "  beast,"  and  events  are  dated  by  his 
reign.  Then  comes  a  genealogy,^  which  traces  Christ  up  to 
Adam.  He  is  Son  of  man  come  in  grace,  not  the  heir  of  pro- 
mises to  Abraham  and  David.  At  once,  in  chaj^ter  iv.,  He 
shows  God's  goodness  extended  to  the  Gentiles,  so  that  they 
were  going  to  kiU  Him.  Then  we  have  His  power  over  demons 
and  diseases, — cleansing  the  leper  and  forgiving  sins  on  earth  ; 
He  is  come  to  the  sick.  His  disciples  could  not  fast  then, — the 
bridegroom  was  there  ; — nor  could  new  wine  be  put  into  old 
bottles,  the  truths  of  grace  and  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  into 
Jewish  ordinances.  He  is  found  (as  constantly  in  Luke)  praying 
as  Son  of  man,  and  slighting  their  thoughts  of  the  Sabbath  ; 
He  was  Lord  of  it  as  Son  of  man  :  it  was  the  sign  of  the 
covenant  with  Israel  (Ezek.  xx.)  He  gives  then  the  summary  of 
blessings  and  woes,  (the  disciples  are  "  ye  poor,")  but  not  the 
principles  on  which  they  would  enter  into  the  kingdom.  There 
is  more  faith  in  a  Gentile  than  in  Israel;  and  then  He  raises  the 
dead.  The  poor  multitude  and  publicans  justified  God ;  the 
Pharisees  rejected  His  counsel  and  are  rejected.  But  wisdom  is 
justified  of  all  her  children  ;  and  the  child  of  wisdom  is  shown 
in  the  poor  woman,  a  sinner  in  the  city :  not  in  the  Pharisee 
who,  with  God  in  his  house,  decided,  as  rationalists  do,  that  He, 
most  clearly,  could  not  be  a  prophet.  But  forgiveness,  salva- 
tion, and  peace  are  the  portion  of  the  poor  woman,  to  whose 

'  iii.  23  should,  I  have  no  doubt,  be  read  "  (Being,  as  was  supposed,  the  son 
of  Joseph)  [the  son]  of  Heli ;  "  that  is,  son  of  Heli  refers  to  Jesus,  not  Joseph  ; 
Ihere  is  no  "  which  was  "  in  Greek.  The  Talmudists  make  Mary  the  daughter  of 
Heli  to  be  tormented  in  the  other  world.  The  vision  of  Isaiah  (a.d.  6S),  it  is 
said,  makes  JIary  to  be  of  the  lineage  of  David.  So  does  Tertullian  according  to 
Kaye.     But  this  only  by  the  by. 


heart  and  conscience  God  had  revealed  Himself  in  Christ  as 
light  and  love. 

Then,  in  chap,  viii.,  the  sowing  the  word  is  spoken  of ;  hut 
we  have  not  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom.  This  Gospel  is  not 
dispensational ;  hut  the  Lord  rejects  association,  according  to 
the  flesh,  with  Israel.  We  have  then  an  account  of  the  expul- 
sion of  the  legion  of  demons  in  Gadara,  and,  as  often  in  Luke, 
moral  details  as  to  the  man.  He  would  go  away  out  of  his 
home  in  this  world  with  Christ,  but  was  sent  back  for  a  testi- 
mony. The  world  gets  rid  of  Jesus  ;  and,  I  have  no  doubt,  the 
rushing  of  the  herd  of  swine  is  a  picture  of  Israel's  conduct 
when  He  was  gone  ;  but  this  is  a  mere  figure  I  leave  to  every  one 
to  judge  of.  He  goes  to  heal  Jairus'  daughter,  but  has  to  raise 
the  dead.  Only  whoever  touches  Him  with  faith,  in  the  way 
as  He  then  was,  is  healed. 

After  feeding  the  multitude  He  is  transfigured ;  and  in 
the  Gospel  of  Luke  only  we  have  the  talking  of  His  decease, 
and  the  going  into  the  cloud,  the  heavenly  part  of  the  king- 
dom, a  very  important  element.  Their  selfishness  is  detected 
in  every  form  from  the  grossest  to  the  most  refined ;  and 
Christ  is  to  be  everything.  This  closes  the  orderly  historical 
part  of  Luke.  Christ's  time  was  come  for  Him  to  be  received 
up,  and  He  stedfastly  sets  his  face  to  go  to  Jerusalem.  In  the 
beginning  of  ix.  He  had  given  His  last  testimony  to  Israel,  only 
there  was  no  inquiry  who  was  worthy  ;  and  then  conies  the 
kingdom  in  glory,  and  entering  into  where  the  Father  was,  the 
excellent  glory,  and  tlie  strict  prohibition  any  more  to  say  that 
He  was  the  Christ.  We  have  no  going  through  the  cities  of 
Israel  till  the  Son  of  man  be  come, — no  prohibitory  notice  of 
Samaritans  and  Gentiles  ;  we  have  the  history  morally,  not  dis- 
pensationally,  given  :  here,  too,  He  was  praying  when  He 
was  transfigured  ;  no  replacing  the  ^lessiah  in  Israel  by  the 
church  founded  on  the  title  Son  of  God,  but  the  heavenly  and 
earthly  glory  when  the  Christ  was  rejected,  and  the  cross,  in 


bearing  whicli  they  were  to  follow  Him.  On  this  He  insists, 
while  the  multitude  wondered  at  His  present  power.  He  sends 
His  messengers  before  His  face  on  His  way  to  Jerusalem,  the 
parting  testimony  to  Israel ;  but  the  disciples  were  to  rejoice, 
not  because  devils  were  subject  to  tliem,  but  because  their 
names  were  written  in  heaven,  Grace  is  taught,  independent 
of  Judaism,  in  the  man  that  fell  among  thieves.  Then  we  have 
hearing  His  word,  and  prayer.  He  was  the  test  of  every  soul. 
The  evil  generation,  as  pictured  in  the  return  of  the  unclean 
spirit,  is  left  out.     Still  the  nation  is  judged  morally. 

The  folly  of  the  world  in  its  desires  is  taught,  and  the  fear 
of  man  to  be  conquered,  and  for  disciples  full  trust  in  God 
exercised ;  while  the  heavenly  portion  of  those  who  watch, 
and  the  rule  in  the  return  of  Christ  of  those  that  serve,  is  beauti- 
fully brought  out.  The  effect  of  His  present  coming  in  dividing 
nearest  friends  is  told,  and  the  application  of  being  in  the  way 
with  the  adversary  made  clear.  Judgment  was  on  all  the  na- 
tion, the  Sabbath  is  set  aside  in  the  work  of  grace,  the  kingdoni 
very  briefly  announced  in  its  external  form,  but  in  connection 
with  entering  in  at  the  strait  gate.  He  would  often  as  Jehovah 
have  gathered  Jerusalem,  but  now  her  day  was  past.  The  Sab- 
bath again  yields  to  doing  good,  and  the  call  to  the  great  Supper 
and  its  result  is  spoken  of:  only  the  sick  and  the  poor  of  the  flock 
is  added  to  what  is  in  Matthew.  We  have  then,  what  is  in  Luke 
only,  grace  in  seeking  and  grace'  in  receiving  by  the  Father, 
God's  joy  in  the  salvation  of  a  sinner  thenceforth  ;  what  mar-, 
a  steward  out  of  place,  is  to  do  with  his  IMaster's  goods  in  view 
of  everlasting  habitations  ;  and  the  veil  withdrawn  from  another 
world,  putting  the  outward  blessings  in  this,  promised  to  Israel, 
in  their  own  true  place.  This  morally  substitutes  Christianity 
for  Judaism. 

After  some  moral  principles.  He  is  substituted  for  the 
temple  and  Judaism  in  the  case  of  the  healed  Samaritan ;  the 
kingdom  of  God  was  there.      Prayer  is  urged,  but  when  the 


Son  of  man  came  where  would  be  faith  ?  and  self-judgment  pre- 
ferred to  self-righteousness,  and  the  heart  searched  instead  of 
the  commandments  outwardly  kept.  There  is  none  good  but 
God.  Salvation  is  only  of  Him.  He  approaches  Jericho  ;  the 
story  of  Zaccheus  is  added,  full  grace  to  a  publican,  but  re- 
sponsibility in  service  when  He  should  be  gone,  and  reward 
according  to  labour.  Then  in  approaching  Jerusalem  on  the  ass, 
the  remarkable  expression.  Peace  in  heaveiL  Till  Satan  should 
be  cast  out  thence,  no  rest  on  earth  could  come.  Jerusalem  is 
wept  over  in  grace. 

In  the  prophecy  to  His  disciples  (chap,  xxi.)  we  have  no 
abomination  of  desolation,  but  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus 
not  mentioned  in  Matthew.  The  true  secret  of  Peter's  fall  brought 
out,  and  the  entire  change  in  Christ's  position  now,  as  being  there, 
not  as  Emmanuel,  King  in  Israel  as  He  had  been,  but  as  a  male- 
factor on  the  cross.  In  Gethsemane  more  deep  human  sorrow 
than  in  any  Gospel :  on  the  cross  none.  He  is  the  perfect  man  ; 
not  here  the  victim  before  God,  true  as  that  ever  remains.  He 
went  through  the  sorrow  with  His  Father ;  and  there  was  calm- 
ness itself  when  the  sorrow  was  actually  there.  We  have  the 
account  of  the  converted  thief,  and  the  assurance  of  a  blessed 
intermediate  state  before  He  came  into  His  (Christ's)  kingdom  : 
a  most  instructive  and  important  history.  I  should  have  added 
that  in  insti'^uting  the  Lord's  Supper  He  does  not  speak  of  eating 
it  new  in  che  kingdom,  but  of  the  present  thing,  its  being 
fulfilled  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  We  have  the  lovely  history  of 
the  disciples'  journey  to  Emmaus  ;  and,  passing  rapidly  over  the 
circumstance  of  the  resurrection,  no  going  to  Galilee,  but  going 
out  to  Bethany  ;  the  ascension  related,  and  their  blessing  in  con- 
^nection  with  His  going  to  heaven.  It  is  He  himself,  the  same 
Jesus  "rhrf)  is  risen  :  He  eats  to  show  it :  opens  their  understand- 
ings to  uAderstand  the  Scriptures  :  repentance  and  remission  of 
sins  to  be\  preached  in  His  name ;  but  they  were  to  wait  for 
power  at  Jerusalem  for  the  promise  of  the  Father — that  is,  the 


coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  on  this  commission,  as  I  have 
said,  that  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  took  place,  as  related  in 

The  whole  Gospel  gives  us  the  moral  change,  and  intro- 
duces the  present  and  heavenly  state  of  things,  not  dealing 
with  dispensations,  though  of  course  with  the  setting  aside  of 
Judaism.  It  is  the  Son  of  man,  and  in  divine  grace.  Wliile 
Luke  is  especially  characteristic,  it  is  less  easy  to  reproduce  its 
character  in  a  summary,  because  it  is  many  minute  traits  which 
form  that  character  :  grace  in  the  Son  of  man.  Still  the  intro- 
ductory chapters,  the  place  and  scope  of  the  genealogy,  the  in- 
troduction of  the  parables  in  xiv.  xv.  xvL,  the  introduction  of 
going  into  the  cloud  in  the  transfiguration,  the  ascension,  the 
thief  on  the  cross,  the  woman  that  was  a  sinner,  the  frequent  pray- 
ing^of  Christ,  the  introduction  of  Gentiles,  aU  marked  grace  that 
reached  out  beyond  promises  to  Israel,  and  the  Son  of  man  in 
whom  that  grace  came. 

The  Gospel  of  John,  on  the  contrary,  gives  very  broad  lines 
of  truth  as  to  the  person  of  Christ  and  the  coming  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Its  character  is  totally  distinct  from  the  other  three 
gospels.  It  is  not  a  history  to  display  what  Christ  was  here.  His 
is  rejection  and  death,  but  a  statement  of  all  that  He  was  in 
Himself  The  Jews  are  all  set  aside,  and  indeed  man,  in  start- 
ing ;  but  all  that  Christ  is,  save  His  relative  characters,  is  found 
already  in  the  first  chapter  :  in  the  third,  what  was  revealed  and 
needed  for  Israel  and  man  to  have  part  in  the  earthly  and  hea- 
venly blessings.  We  have  only  to  follow  the  contents  of  the 
Gospel  to  see  its  bearing.  The  sovereign  operation  of  needed 
grace  is  found  also  from  the  beginning.  What  was  found  by 
results  and  experience  in  the  first  three  Gospels  is  taught  as 
truth  here. 

The  first  chapter  begins  before  Genesis,  because  it  treats  of 
what  was,  not  of  what  was  done.  As  to  Christ,  He  is  God,  in 
nature  a  distinguishable  person  with  God,  not  become  so  by 



incarnation,  but  with  God  in  the  beginning.  He  was,  when 
all  began.  In  Him  was  life,  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men  ; 
but  the  light  shone  in  darkness,  that  is,  amongst  men,  bnt 
the  darkness  comprehended  not.  God,  in  patient  love,  sent  a 
witness  to  draw  men's  attention  to  that  light.  Next,  verse  14, 
He  became  flesh,  lyhiTo,  became,  not  now  r,v,  was.  He  became 
flesh,  was  this  amongst  men  as  man,  was  a  Son  with  His  own 
Father,  dwelt  among  men  full  of  grace  and  truth.  Christians 
have  all  received  of  His  fulness,  and  grace  for  grace.  Grace 
and  truth  came  by  Him,  they  were  there,  symro.  The  law 
was  given  by  Moses.  Then  His  work :  He  is  the  Lamb  of 
God,  the  taker-away  of  the  sin  (not  sins)  of  the  world,  and  the 
baptizer  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  He  was  anointed  and  sealed  with 
it  Himself.  Then,  as  John  had  witnessed  to  Him  as  Lamb  of  God, 
His  disciples  gathered  round  him.  He  is  Son  of  God  and  King 
of  Israel  But  much  more  :  henceforth  the  heavens  would  be 
seen  opened,  and  the  angels  of  God  ascending  and  descending 
on  the  Son  of  man.  He  is  not  the  Christ  for  Israel  in  this 
chapter  ;  nor  Priest  above  ;  nor  Head  of  the  church.  John  does 
not  own  the  Jews,  nor  has  he  indeed  to  do  with  the  Church  : 
all  is  individual,  not  counsels,  but  God  revealed  in  the  Son 
declaring  His  Father;  and  eternal  life  come  down  to  be  imparted 
to  man,  the  Word  become  flesh. 

In  the  second  chapter  we  have  the  result  when  the  history 
of  the  gathered  remnant  closes,  the  joy  of  the  marriage,  the 
purifying  water  turned  into  wine,  and  the  temple  purged  of  all 
that  profaned  it.  This  closes  the  introductory  part  as  to  all 
that  concerns  Christ. 

We  have  now  what  concerns  men.  But  the  incarnation  is 
the  introduction  of  what  was  before  the  beginning  of  all  things, 
in  the  power  of  life  in  a  Man,  into  the  scene  of  the  all  things, 
to  be  eternal  life  indeed  as  from  everlasting  in  His  person  ;  but 
a  wholly  new  thing  though  a  true  j\Ian  amongst  men — a  new 
beginning.     But  the  mere  human  conviction  by  evidence  was 


nothing,  and  not  to  be  trusted.  Man  ninst  be  born  again  (a^w^a^) 
wholly  anew.  Nicodenius  ought  to  have  known  this  as  a  teacliei 
of  Israel.  The  prophets  (see  Ezek.  xxxvi.)  showed  it  plainly  that, 
even  for  Israel  to  enjoy  the  earthly  promises,  there  must  be  a 
new  birth  ;  how  much  more  to  have  part  in  the  heavenly!  which 
He  would  teach  as  coming  thence,  as  no  one  else  had  to  tell  it, 
the  Son  of  man,  who  was  even  then  divinely  in  heaven.  But  the 
Son  of  man  must  be  lifted  up,  that  a  people  separated  by  faith 
should  have  a  part  in  these  heavenly  things.  The  need  was  there  on 
man's  side,  and  the  Son  of  man  met  it.  The  love  of  God  was  there 
on  God's  side,  and  the  Son  of  God  was  given  ;  but  it  is  the  world, 
not  Israel  The  condemnation  now  was  that  light  was  come 
into  the  world  ;  and  man  hated  it,  and  did  not  come  to  it.  In 
the  rest  of  the  chapter  John  the  Baptist  unfolds  who  he  is,  the 
testimony  being  closed  by  the  evangelist  himself  with  the 
Father's  love  to  the  Son,  and  His  having  put  all  things  into  His 
hand  :  he  that  believed  on  Him  had  everlasting  life.  Man,  God 
in  grace,  Israel,  the  world,  and  the  Son  of  God  come  in  grace 
revealing  the  Father,  bringing  eternal  life,  grace  and  truth — all 
find  their  place  here  ;  what  Christ  is,  and  the  truth  as  to  man, 
the  being  born  again,  and  the  atonement  on  the  cross. 

This  closes  the  introduction,  the  epoch  being  marked  by  John 
being  not  yet  cast  into  prison ;  after  which  Christ  began  His 
public  ministry.  In  the  fourth  chapter  the  Lord  leaves  Judsea, 
His  country  as  come  amongst  the  Jews,  and  we  find  grace  with  a 
Samaritan,  prerogative  mercy  above  Jewish  relationship,  and  con- 
nected with  His  person  and  humiliation,  but  no  understanding  of 
it  in  man  ;  and  this  prodiiced  by  dealing  with  the  conscience. 
Worship  must  be  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  for  God  is  a  spirit ; 
but  the  Father,  His  name  in  grace,  revealed  in  the  Son,  seeketh 
such.  In  ch.  v.  we  have  the  benefits  under  the  law  depend- 
ent on  the  power  of  the  person  who  is  to  use  them,  and  there  is 
none  ;  the  disease  to  be  cured  has  taken  away  the  force  to  use 
the  remedy  :   Christ  as  Son  of  God  brings  it  with  Him.      The 


Father  raises  the  dead,  and  quickens  them,  so  the  Son  quickens 
whom  He  "will ;  and  he  who  believes  has  eternal  life :  then  man's 
responsibility  as  to  it,  life  being  come  in  His  person,  with  the  evi- 
dence of  John  Baptist,  His  own  works,  the  Father,  their  own  Scrip- 
tures :  they  would  not  come  to  Him  to  have  it.  In  ch.  vi.  He  is 
Son  of  man,  owned  prophet,  refusing  to  be  king ;  He  ascends  up 
for  priestly  service,  and  the  disciples  go  away  alone;  He  rejoins 
them,  and  they  are  immediately  where  they  went.  Our  food, 
meanwhile,  is  Christ  humbled,  the  bread  from  heaven,  and 
His  flesh  and  blood  ;  but  if  this  last.  His  death,  be  not  fed  on, 
there  is  not  life  ;  in  such  case  their  portion  is  resurrection  in 
the  last  day,  in  a  state  man  never  was  in,  even  innocent.  In  ch. 
vii.  tlie  Holy  Ghost  takes  the  place  of  Tabernacles,  as  we  have  seen, 
of  which  there  is  yet  no  antitype ;  in  ch.  viii.  His  M'^ord  is  rejected; 
in  ch.  ix.  His  work ;  in  ch.  x.  He  will  have  His  sheep  at  any  rate 
out  of  Israel  and  the  Gentiles  too ;  in  chs.  xi.  xii.  we  have  the  testi- 
mony rendered  of  God,  as  we  have  seen,  to  Christ  when  rejected 
as  Son  of  God,  Son  of  David,  Son  of  man :  but  then  He  must  die. 
This  closes  His  history,  and  He  is  now  looked  at  as  going  to 
His  Father — this  from  ch.  xiii.  He  must  leave  His  disciples ;  but  if 
He  cannot  stay  with  them,  He  must  have  them  with  Him  gone 
now  to  God.  For  this  He  abides  a  servant,  and  washes  their  feet ; 
for  being  washed  (converted),  that  is  done  once  for  all.  Their  walk 
remains  to  be  seen  to.  Further,  God  is  perfectly  glorified  by  Him 
in  His  death,  so  man  goes  into  God's  glory.  In  ch.  xiv.  He  went 
to  prepare  a  place  for  them  above,  and  will  come  back  and  receive 
them.  Tliey  knew  where  He  was  going,  for  He  was  going  to 
the  Father,  and  they  had  seen  the  Father  in  Him,  and  so  knew 
the  way  too.  Further,  when  the  Comforter  was  come,  they  would 
know  not  only  that  He  was  in  the  Father,  but  that  they  were  in 
Him  and  He  in  them.  In  ch.  xv.  Israel  was  not  the  true  vine, 
though  a  vine  brought  out  of  Egypt.  He  was  so :  and  they  the 
branches  and  this  on  earth.  Then  the  work  of  the  Comforter  fully 
developed  in  ch.  xvi. :  sent  by  the  Father  in  xiv.  in  His  name :  by 


Him,  from  the  Father,  as  the  glorified  Man  in  ch.  xv.,  xvi.    In  cii. 
xvii.  speaking  to  His  Father — wondrous  grace  that  we  should  be 
admitted  to  hear  Him— He  puts  the  disciples  (founding  it  on  His 
work,  and  glorifying,  and  revelations  of  tlie  Father  in  Himself)  on 
the  same  ground  as  Himself  with  the  Father  and  with  the  world. 
Then  we  have  Gethsemane  and  the  cross  ch.  xx..  His  revela- 
tion of  Himself  to  Mary  Magdalene  and  to  the  disciples :  and  this 
whole  period  of  Christian  blessing  characterised.     The  Jewish 
remnant,  who  loved  Him,  could  not  now  have  Him  back  in  bodily 
presence,  but  they  were  now  His  brethren ;  He  went  to  His  Father 
and  their  Father,  to  His  God  and  their  God :  He  is  in  their  midst, 
communicates  life  in  resurrection  in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
as  God  breathed  into  Adam,  commits  the  administration  of  for- 
giveness of  sins  on  earth  to  them.    Thomas  represents  the  remnant 
in  the  latter  day.     In  ch.  xxi.  we  are  in  Galilee  again  witli  this 
remnant;  and  the  service  of  Peter,  who  is  blessedly  restored 
through  grace,  and  of  John :  one  as  the  apostle  of  the  circumci- 
sion to  find  his  labour  in  Israel  come  to  nothing  as  regards  the 
nation,  and  he  a  martyr,  as  Christ ;  and  John  to  linger  over  the 
condition  of  the  church  till  He  came.      It  is  purposely  given 
mysteriously,  and  in  part  refers  to  the  last  days.     The  net  is 
the  millennial  haul,  and  does  not  break,  as  the  gospel  net  did. 
(Of  Paul's  ministry  we  have  notliing ;  it  stands  by  itself,  a  dis- 
pensation committed  to  him.) .  We  have  no  ascension  in  St. 
John's  gospel.     It  will  be  remarked  that,  all  through,  it  is  the 
divine  side  and  the  purpose  of  God  as  to  Christ,  which  is  treated 
here ;  with  the  Holy  Gliost  who  takes  His  place  on  earth. 

I  would  still  notice  the  distinction  of  the  closing  scene  in  the 
Gospels.  In  Matthew  Christ  is  the  victim,  perfect  in  calmness 
and  patience,  with  no  ray  to  comfort  Him,  no  heart  to  feel  for 
Him  ;  He  is  led  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter  ;  man's  wickedness 
friglitfully  brought  out,  but  a  perfect  victim  of  propitiation,  told 
out  on  the  cross  by  the  solemn  words,  "My  God,  :My  God,  why 
hast  thou  forsaken  Me  ?"     In  the  midst  of  plans  of  the  priests 

tS2  have  we  a  revelation  from  god 7 

and  the  vacillation  of  Pilate  God's  purpose  is  carried  out  in  the 
true  passover  :  and  Christ  is,  before  both,  condemned  for  His 
own  testimony  to  the  truth. 

In  Luke  you  have  deeper  human  conflict  in  Gethsemane, 
though  perfection  in  it :  being  in  an  agony,  He  prayed  more 
earnestly.  On  the  cross  there  is  none  :  He  had  gone  through  it 
as  man  with  His  Father,  and  the  perfect  result  is  peacefulness 
on  the  cross.  Also,  here,  as  man,  He  commends  His  spirit  to 
His  Father. 

In  John  we  have  the  divine  side — no  sorrow  in  Gethsemane, 
none  on  the  cross.  In  Gethsemane  they  go  backward  and  fall  to 
the  ground,  and  He  delivers  up  Himself,  saying,  "  If  ye  seek  Me, 
let  these  go  their  way."  On  the  cross  He  puts  His  mother  under 
John's  care,  and  delivered  up  His  own  spirit  when  all  was 
finished  in  the  work  He  had  to  do.  "We  have  to  learn  in  part, 
and  the  various  parts  separately,  that  we  may  know  all.  John 
was  nearer  Christ  in  His  agony,  but  Matthew  gives  it,  not  John. 
Matthew  saw  the  people  go  back  and  fall,  but  says  nothing  of  it. 
The  Holy  Ghost  gives  by  each  what  suits  the  whole  tenor  and  sub- 
ject of  that  Gospel.  But  our  Baurs  and  other  Germans  can  see  no- 
thing but  a  composition  to  make  peace  among  Christian  squabblers 
in  the  end  of  the  second  century.  Can  there  be  greater  poverty, 
more  total  moral  darkness  ?  Mr.  Smith,  professing  for  some 
other  reason  to  believe,  debits  out  this  threadbare  infidelity, 
without  a  ray  of  light  to  lighten  the  darkness,  or  say  it  is  not 
true ;  or  he  would  persiiade  us  that  Christ  sanctioned,  as  wiitten 
by  Moses,  and  as  the  word  of  God  relative  to  Himself,  what  was 
not  written  by  Moses  at  all, — an  imposture  in  which  he,  for- 
sooth, can  see  no  harm,  and  would  have  us  believe  that  the 
Lord  and  the  apostles  were  all  wrong  ;  and  Dr.  Baur  and  him- 
self right. 

I  have  referred  to  the  Psalms  as  another  illustration  of  unity 
of  purpose  and  mind  as  collected.  It  is  well  known  there  are 
five  distinct  books,  each  ending  with  ascription  of  praise  to 


Jehovah — i.-xli. :  xlii.-lxxii. :  Ixxiii.-lxxxix. :  xc.-cvi. :  and  thence 
to  the  end.  Each  book  has  its  own  object  and  character.  The 
first  two  psalms,  however,  are  an  introduction,  and  give  the  key 
to  the  whole  cl.  In  Ps.  i.  there  is  a  remnant  distinguished  from 
the  ungodly  of  the  nation.  Ps.  ii.  gives  the  counsels  of  Jehovah 
to  establish,  in  spite  of  rejection  by  Jews  and  Gentiles,  Christ 
(the  anointed)  as  King  on  His  holy  hill  of  Zion ;  also  His  Son,  as 
born  into  the  world  ;  and,  finally,  to  subdue  the  Gentiles  with  a 
rod  of  iron. 

I  would  now  mention  a  principle  of  order  which  helps  us 
to  understand  the  connection  of  many  psalms.  One  or  more 
psalms  give  the  platform  on  which  the  thoughts  and  feelings 
of  the  following  psalms  are  based.^  But,  first,  as  to  the  character 
of  the  five  books.  In  the  first  the  remnant  is  still  in  Jeru- 
salem, and  the  name  Jehovah  is  used  throughout,  though  in 
two  Elohim  be  introduced.  And  here  we  have  more  prophetic 
reference  to  Christ,  though  rejected. 

In  the  second  book  the  remnant  is  out  of  Jerusalem  ; 
but  their  state  is  pursued  through  rejection  tiU  the  authority 
of  the  Son  of  David  be  established.  This  begins  with  Elohim  ; 
but  after  Ps.  xlv.,  when  the  King  is  brought  in  in  power,  we 
find  Jehovah,  and  triumph.  Blood-guiltiness  is  owned,  the 
sufferings  and  sorrows  of  the  people  under  oppression  and  hos- 
tile power  are  recounted  :  and  Elohim  is  largely,  sometimes  ex- 
clusively, used  in  contrast  with  man  poweiful  in  wickedness. 
Still  judgment  is  looked  for  in  faith,  and  true  rei:»entance  in 
Israel.  But  the  remnant  all  through  are  cast  out,  though  their 
praise  is  ready  (Ixv.)  when  restored.  In  Ixix.  Christ  associates 
Himself  with  Israel,  bearing  their  sins,  and  carrying  their 
sorrows  in  His  heart,  though  rejected  of  them  ;  and  here  Jehovah 
comes  in  again.  It  closes,  as  already  said,  in  the  Son  of  David 
being  established  in  glory  and  power. 

^  It  -ft-ill  be  found  in  individual  psalms,  tlie  first  verse  or  two  giving  the 
tliL'sis,  the  rest  what  leads  to  it. 


The  tliird  book  goes  beyond  tlie  Jews,  and  takes  in  all 
Israel.  They  are  to  be  received  after  the  glory,  and  though 
faith  does  bring  in  Jehovah  at  Ixxiii.  28,  and  Ixxviii.  21,  Ixxx. 
4,  Ixxxi.  10,  still  Elohim  is  the  constant  cry :  they  are  not  yet 
restored  by  the  glory.  Still  we  have  this  prophetically,  and 
all  the  exercises  of  heart  and  faith  and  hope  about  it  furnished 
to  them  by  inspiration.  Here  too  the  old  associations  of  Israel 
as  a  whole  are  far  more  fully  before  us.  In  Ixxxiii.  Jehovah 
comes  fully  in  again,  on  the  judgment  against  the  last  con- 
federacy being  executed,  and  is  used  even  in  the  depth  of  their 
humiliation,  their  guilt  under  the  old  covenant  (Ixxxviii.)  la 
the  next  psalm  mercies  are  recounted  and  Christ  brought  in 
(verse  19  called  holy  one  wrongly.  It  is  still  Chesed,  so  the 
same  as  in  the  first  verse  generally  ;  in  verse  18  Kodesh.) 
That  is,  Jehovah.     This  closes  the  book. 

The  fourth  book  is  the  bringing  in  the  first-begotten  into  the 
world.  Jehovah  has  been  ever  Israel's  dwelling-place.  Of  xci. 
I  have  spoken  where  Jehovah  is  identified  with  the  Most  High, 
in  the  accomplishment  of  the  promises  to  Abraham.  This  is 
celebrated  by  faith  in  the  next  psalm.  Then,  with  xciii.  as  a 
preface,  the  introduction  of  Jehovah  Messiah  into  the  world, 
from  the  appeal  of  the  suffering  remnant  who  inquire  if  Jehovah 
is  going  to  reign  conjointly  with  the  power  of  evil,  verse  20,  on 
to  the  calling  up  the  Gentiles  to  worship  at  Jerusalem,  where 
the  presence  and  glory  of  Jehovah  are  fully  established,  in 
Psalm  c.  In  ci.  we  have  the  principles  of  the  earthly  king- 
dom ;  and  cii.  how  Christ,  who  was  cut  off,  could  be  there.  He 
was  Jeliovah  Eternal  in  nature  (Atta  Hu),  and  His  years,  too,  as 
man  should  never  fail  (see  Heb.  i.)  Psalm  ciii.  celebrates  Christ 
as  Jehovah  (comp.  Matt,  ix.)  in  Israel ;  in  Ps.  civ.  it  is  the  God 
of  creation  who  is  celebrated ;  in  cv.  the  God  of  Israel  of  old, 
but  whose  judgments  are  now  in  all  the  earth.  In  cvi.  Jehovah's 
faithfulness  is  looked  to  in  spite  of  all  their  misdeeds. 

The  fifth  book,  from  cvii.  to  the  end,  is  more  general,  but  we 


have  them  gathered  out  of  all  lands.  The  great  revelation  that 
Messiah  Melchisedek  was  to  sit  on  Jehovah's  right  hand  till  His 
enemies  were  made  His  footstool,  then  His  power  would  come 
out  of  Zion.  It  is  fully  celebrated  "  that  Jehovah's  mercy  en- 
dures for  ever."  The  circumstances  of  deliverance  are  rehearsed 
in  the  Mahaloth,  the  law  written  (cxix.)  in  the  heart  of  Israel 
who  had  gone  astray  like  a  sheep  that  was  lost ;  and  finally  the 
great  Hallelujah  of  now  accomplished  deliverance.  Ps.  Ixxii. 
and  cxlv.  alone,  as  far  as  I  remember,  describe  the  millennial  state 
itself :  the  first  as  to  Christ ;  the  second  as  to  His  association  with 
the  people.  The  cxviii.  is  the  full  description  of  the  return  of 
Israel's  heart  to  Jehovah,  recognising  His  ways  and  their  own 
fault,  and  is  constantly  quoted  by  the  Lord  in  the  Gospels,  and 
brought  out  by  the  power  of  God  in  the  last  entry  into  Jerusalem : 
and  it  is  quoted  also  in  the  Acts. 

I  return  to  note  a  few  details  based  on  the  principle 
referred  to  at  the  outset.  Psalms  i.  ii.  are  the  preface  and 
key  as  I  have  said ;  then  Ps.  iii.-vii.  the  thoughts  and  feelings 
Christ's  rejection  has  given  rise  to  in  the  remnant,  ending  in  His 
character  as  Son  of  man,  Ps.  viii.  Of  this  I  have  spoken  before.  Ps. 
ix.  x.^  are  the  sorrows  of  the  Jews  and  the  delivering  judgments 
of  God;  in  xi.-xvii.  their  thoughts  and  feelings,  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion, trust  and  righteousness  being  introduced,  ending  in  xviii., 
when  Christ's  sufferings  are  made  the  key  to  Israel's  history,  from 
Egypt  to  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  in  power.  Ps.  xLc.- 
xxii.  are  deeply  interesting,  creation  testimony,  the  testimony  of 
the  law,  of  a  Christ  suffering  from  man  exalted  to  glory  and 
punishing  all  His  enemies,  of  a  Christ  suffering  indeed  from  man, 
but  then  crying  to  God  and  forsaken,  yet  perfect  and  making 
atonement ;  nothing  but  wider  and  wider  blessing  flowing  from 
it  to  the  remnant  which  becomes  the  church,  literally  accom- 

1  I  do  not  understand  how  Mr.  S.  makes  there  an  imperfect  acrostic.  It  is 
looking  inexactly  and  superficially  at  the  outside,  and  missing  all  the  force  of 
the  Psalms.    "We  have  N,  N,  D,  D  to  begin  with  in  Ps.  ix.  ;  ^,  3,  3,  T  in  Ps.  x. 


plished  in  Joliu  xx.,  to  all  Israel,  to  the  world,  and  those  bom 
in  the  millennium  :  "  He  hath  done  this." 

Ps.  xxiii.  forms  another  starting-point :  Jehovah  the  Shepherd 
who  cares  for  His  tried  one  ;  Ps.  xxiv.  Clirist  the  Jehovah  who 
enters  in  triumph  into  the  gates  of  righteousness  on  earth.  The 
exercises  on  this  go  to  Ps.  xxxix.  Then  we  have  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  counsels  of  God,  undertaken  by  a  suffering  obedient 
Christ,  the  key  to  all  ;  and  then  the  blessing  on  him  (xli.)  who 
understands  the  poor,  as  He  said,  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit, 
"  ye  poor  ; "  and  we  can  say,  This  poor  man  cried,  and  Jehovah 
heard  him. 

I  need  not  go  any  farther  to  illustrate  general  principles, 
which  is  all  I  can  attempt  to  do  now.  The  divine  sequence  and 
connection  of  the  Psalms  is,  I  think,  evident ;  yet  they  are  con- 
fessedly isolated  songs,  composed  at  different  times,  even  if 
mostly  David's :  a  collection,  but  the  mind  of  God  shines 
through  them  as  a  collection  ;  His  purposes  in  Christ  and  in 
Israel,  when  Jehovah  shall  be  owned  as  Most  High  in  all  the 
earth,  a  suffering  remnant  and  a  Messiah  who  has  entered  into 
their  sorrows.  Of  course  the  Father's  name  is  not  and  cannot 
be  found  in  them,  nor  the  Spirit  of  adoption.  It  is  deeply  inter- 
esting to  see  that,  while  His  human  sorrows  can  be  viewed  in 
Psalm  XX.,  His  atoning  sufferings  can  be  expressed  only  by  His 
own  mouth  (xxii.) 

I  would  say  a  few  words  on  Petrine  and  Pauline  teaching,  as  it 
is  greatly  dwelt  on  by  tliese  "learned  Germans."  It  is  folly,  as  they 
take  it  with  their  speculations,  but  most  interesting,  when  rightly 
looked  at.  That  the  Jews  had  the  strongest  prejudices  against 
the  Gentiles  is  notorious,  and  that  the  Jewish  Christians  M'cre 
not  exem])t  from  thcni  is  evident  upon  the  face  of  the  New 
Testament  history.  We  possess  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  the 
case  of  Cornelius,  and  it  is  plainly  in  point  both  as  regards 
Peter  himself  and  those  at  Jerusalem.  The  affair  between  him 
and  Paul  (Galatians  ii.)  tells  the  same  tale,  and  reveals,  as  do 


other  passages,  the  effort  to  force  circumcision  on  the  Gentiles. 
The  council  in  Acts  xv.  under  God  decided  otherwise  at  Jerusa- 
lem itself,  which  was  the  important  point.  But,  clear  as  may 
have  been  the  Christian  decision,  prejudices  remain  behind  de- 
cisions acquiesced  in.  "  Certain  came  from  James  "  marks  this 
clearly.  Only  in  Hebrews  (xiii.  10-13)  are  tliey  summoned  to 
give  up  Judaism. 

But  there  was  much  more  than  this.  The  writings  of 
Paul  contain  a  doctrine  unknown  to  all  other  parts  of  Scrip- 
ture— the  church  as  the  body  of  Christ.  It  is  not  men- 
tioned by  any  other  New  Testament  writer.  The  word  is  not 
used.  It  was  a  dispensation  committed  to  him,  besides  the 
gospel,  to  complete  the  word  of  God.  He  was  the  wise  master- 
builder  who  laid  the  foundation.  It  had  been  hidden  from  ages 
and  generations:  in  proof  of  this,  see  Eomans  xvi.  25  ;  (read 
"prophetic  Scriptures,"  not  Scriptures  of  the  prophets)  Ephe- 
sians  iii.  1  to  10  ;  Colossians  i.  24-26. 

John  had  nothing  to  do  wdth  this  question  :  his  ministry 
did  not  reach  out  to  it.  It  was  the  revelation  of  eternal 
life,  and  the  Father  in  the  Son,  and  His  becoming  our  life ;  but 
his  ministry  is  always  individual.  If  the  children  were  to  be 
gathered  together  in  one  by  Christ's  death,  as  well  as  the  nation 
died  for,  it  is  individually  as  a  family,  not  as  the  body  of  Christ. 
And  in  the  mysterious  end  of  his  Gospel  it  passes  from  Peter 
closing  his  life  and  ministry  as  Christ  did,  and  passes  on  to 
Christ's  coming :  in  ministry  fulfilled  in  the  Apocalypse.  In  this 
last  chapter  of  John,  Paul  does  not  come  in  at  all.  John  speaks 
of  Christ's  and  our  going  to  heaven  but  four  times,  as  far  as  I 
remember  (vi.  xiv.  xvi.  and  xvii.)  His  ministry  was  the  display 
of  wiiat  was  divine  here  below  :  hence  its  attractiveness. 

Paul  presents  us  in  Christ  before  God :  and  this  leads  to  union 
with  Christ  as  His  body.  Peter's  ministry,  after  presenting  grace, 
redemption,  and  birth  by  the  incorruptible  seed  of  the  word,  and 
speaking  of  Christ's  bearing  our  sins,  very  clearly  dwells  as  his 


specialty  on  the  government  of  God :  in  the  first  Epistle  as  to  the 
saints,  in  the  second  as  to  the  ungodly.  I  speak  in  all  these  cases 
of  what  characterises  them.  But  none  ever  touches  on  what  con- 
stitutes Paul's  special  ministry.  I  may  add,  John  still  speaks 
of  preachers  who  had  gone  out  taking  nothing  of  the  Gentiles, 
of  Christ  dying,  not  for  our  sins  only,  but  for  the  whole  world. 
He  puts  our  standing  clearly  in  Christ  (1  Johniv.  17)  ;  but  it  is 
still  individual. 

The  riatonism  of  John  is  a  fable ;  it  is  anti-Platonic  in 
its  revelations,  and  expressly  so.  The  notion  even  of  disputes 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  seems  to  me  unhistorical 
— save  some  Nazarenes  and  Ebionites  in  Palestine,  soon  sunk 
into  insignificance — Judaism  proper  sunk  into  oblivion.  The 
Alexandrian  corruption  of  Christianity  issuing  in  Arianism  was 
later  and  connected  with  Neoplatonism.  Justin  Martyr  (a.d. 
140)  was  infected  with  it,  and  others  of  that  school  of  his 
time.  But  it  was  another  thing.  This  is  true  that  the  full 
doctrine  of  redemption  as  taught  by  Paul  never  took  root  in  the 
church :  the  church  itself  Judaised,  and  has  remained  in  this 
state  to  this  day.  The  return  to  Paul's  teaching,  and  partially 
John's,  is  what  is  disturbing  its  slumbers  at  this  day. 

"What  was  special  in  Paul's  doctrine  was  that  by  the  descent 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  believers,  perfectly  saved,  were  united  in  one 
body  to  Christ,  Jews  or  Gentiles  :  and  the  fulness  of  redemption 
in  a  new  creation  was  manifested,  by  the  glorifying  of  Christ, 
as  man,  on  high.  Paul's  conversion  connected  itself  with  this. 
He  never  knew  Christ  on  earth — was  a  strict  legal  Jew. 
Christ  was  revealed  to  him  in  glory,  and  Christians  spoken  of 
by  Christ  as  being  Himself.  He  was  delivered  from  the  people 
and  from  the  Gentiles,  and  sent  to  these  last  in  connection 
with  a  glorified  Christ,  all  disciples  being  one  with  Him :  and 
the  apostles  at  Jerusalem  give  up  to  him  their  mission  to  the 
Gentiles  (Gal.  ii.)  Of  course  this  gave  a  special  character  to  his 
mission,  though  the  gospel,  the  basis  of  personal  salvation,  re- 


mained  the  same.     It  was  a  dispensation  committed  to  him,  a 
mystery  kept  secret  since  the  world  began. 

This  is  the  reality  of  the  difference  between  Petrine  and 
Pauline  teaching,  which  is  sufficiently  important.  But  this  was 
too  early  lost,  and  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  redemption  and  the 
church  merged  in  outward  forms  and  organisation,  to  have  been 
a  ground  for  any  great  controversy.  None  held  Paul's  doc- 
trine. The  Pope  is  the  successor  of  Peter,  not  of  Paul,  though 
the  last  may  be  smuggled  in  to  appropriate  and  hide  him.  John's 
teaching  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question.  Indeed  the 
Baur  theory  is  pretty  much  given  up,  I  speak  of  it  to  free 
the  intrinsic  importance  of  the  additional  truth  taught  by  Paul : 
for  it  is  no  diff'erence  of  gospel,  but  a  very  much  larger  revela- 
tion of  the  counsels  of  God,  from  the  idle,  and  (they  must 
forgive  me)  low,  husky,  speculations  of  those  who  know  nothing 
of  the  real  contents — husks  half  gone  already  ;  for  rationalist 
speculations  cannot  be  expected  to  last  above  twenty  years. 

The  accusations  of  plagiarism  I  do  not  make  much  account  of 
But  I  do  not  see  original  research  in  the  article  "  Bible."  It  is 
the  current  speculation  of  the  day.  But  that  must  be  borrowed 
somewhere.  De  Wette,  Ewald,  F.  W.  Newman  (\vho  borrowed 
it  from  tlie  Germans),  Hupfeld,  all  give  it  to  us  :  and  I  now  see 
it  in  Professor  Kuenen,  whom  I  have  just  read.  It  is  a  mere 
reproduction  of  what  these  teach,  and,  unless  there  was  real  per- 
sonal research,  it  could  hardly  be  anything  else.  "  Opinionum 
commenta  delet  dies,  naturae  iudicia  confirmat  ; "  only  for 
"naturae"  we  must  substitute  "aeternae  veritatis." 

You  may  consult  Eichhorn's  (a  rationalist's)  judgment : — 
(1)  None  but  ignorant  and  thoughtless  doubters  can  suppose 
the  Okl  Testament  to  have  been  forged  by  one  deceiver ;  (2) 
They  are  not  the  forgery  of  many  deceivers.  .  .  .  But  how 
could  they  forge  in  a  way  so  entirely  conformed  to  the  progress 
of  the  human  understanding  ;  and  was  it  possible  in  later  times 
to   create   the   language   of  Moses?      He  "oes  through   other 


suppositions,  and  says,  How  could  a  whole  nation  be  often  de- 
ceived and  at  different  periods,  and  by  what  degraded  them- 
selves ?  The  whole  passage,  too  long  to  quote  here,  may  be  read : 
Moses  Stuart  has  translated  it.  The  writers  all  quote,  he  says, 
or  refer  to  what  has  been  written  before.  Profane  history  refers 
to  ]\Ioses  as  the  lawgiver  of  Israel.  It  would  be  a  serious  diffi- 
culty, if  anything  be  a  difficulty  to  a  theorist,  to  see  how  or  why 
an  elaborate  system  of  tabernacle  arrangement,  professing  to 
come  by  direct  inspiration  from  God,  should  be  recorded,  when  a 
totally  different  one  was  before  their  eyes.  No  one  reading  the 
Old  Testament  for  himself  but  must  see  a  clear  and  orderly 
succession  of  historical  events,  though  much  more — collected 
afterwards,  no  doubt,  into  a  volume — and  that  the  effort  to 
invalidate  it  supposes  more  absurdity  than  any  other  theory. 
It  is  bound  together  historically  too  closely.  All  is  false 
if  the  whole  be  not  substantially  true  as  it  stands,  for  it  all 
hangs  together  and  supposes  itself  all  throughout.  But  faith 
depends  on  other  workings  in  the  soul  than  these  external 
proofs.  Doubts  may  be  easily  awakened,  but  did  these 
reasoners  ever  present  us  with  one  certain  solid  truth  1 

As  the  matter  has  come  publicly  before  all  the  world,  I  must 
say  that  Mr.  S.'s  defence  is  worse  than  his  previous  acts.  To  dis- 
seminate pure  infidelity  (for  this  it  is),  destroying  the  inspiration 
of  the  Bible  as  we  have  it,  without  a  hint  of  anything  else,  and 
then  say  he  believes  it  for  other  reasons,  is  too  bad  to  be  quali- 
fied by  any  term  I  could  use.  It  results  in  making  it  no 
matter  to  falsify  tlie  real  origin  of  the  books ;  and  in  making 
Christ  and  the  apostles  put  their  sanction  on  such  a  course,  or 
declare  one  to  be  the  true  author  when  he  was  not.  And 
if  it  were  true,  where  was  the  inspiration  of  the  writer  ? 

The  question  is  not  as  to  Professor  Smith  (of  whom  I  know 
nothing  but  what  is  published) ;  but.  Are  plain  souls  to  have  the 
word  of  God,  what  "  proceeds  out  of  the  mouth  of  God,"  quoted 
by  the  Lord  and  His  apostles  as  such,  and  Christianity  com- 


municated  in  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  taught,  or  the  fancies 
of  Astruc  and  Baur  and  Smith,  with  no  real  communication 
from  God  Himself?     AVhat  is  my  soul  to  lean  on  ? 

Happily  when  the  great  conflict  betw^een  man  in  the  Second 
Adam  and  Satan  took  place,  words  which  proceeded  out  of  the 
mouth  of  God  were  sufficient  for  the  Lord  and  for  Satan,  as  they 
ever  wiU  be ;  and  in  the  hour  of  His  deep  and  atoning  agony  suf- 
ficed to  express  what  was  in  His  heart,  that  which  no  other  heart 
could  ever  fathom  or  express.  If  there  be  a  blessing  in  the 
world  besides  the  Lord  Himself  in  grace,  it  is  to  have  God's 
word  as  He  Himself  has  given  it  to  us,  like  that  Lord  Himself, 
what  is  divine  and  heavenly  but  perfectly  suited  and  adapted 
to  man,  in  the  heart  of  man  :  the  Old  Testament  as  a  pipe 
which  brings  it,  partially  drunk  at  by  those  who  conveyed  it ; 
in  the  New  the  heart  itself,  first  the  vessel  drinking  for  its  own 
thirst,  and  then  the  water  flowing  forth  from  the  inmost  man. 
"  When  it  pleased  God,  who  separated  me  from  my  mother's 
womb  and  called  me  by  His  grace  to  reveal  His  Son  in  me,  that 
I  might  preach  Him  among  the  heathen."  All  of  it  is  that  word 
of  God  which  works  effectually  in  them  that  believe.  "  If  that 
which  was  from  the  beginning  abide  in  you,  ye  also  shall  abide 
in  the  Son  and  in  the  Father." 

Note  for  Page  28. 

In  order  to  shew  tlie  advantage  of  reading  the  foregoing  along  with  the  article  on 
which  it  animadverts,  we  give  a  quotation  from  it  on  alleged  "Parallel  Nar- 
ratives "  and  divergent  laws,  in  the  Pentateuch  : — 

"  This  view  is  supported  by  the  fact,  that  even  as  it  now  stands  the  histoiy 
sometimes  gi\'\'S  more  than  one  account  of  the  same  event,  and  that  the  Penta- 
teuch often  gives  several  laws  on  the  same  subject.  Of  the  latter  we  have  already 
had  one  example,  but  for  our  present  argument  the  main  point  is  not  diversity  of 
enactment,  which  may  often  be  only  apparent,  but  the  existence  witliin  the 
Pentateuch  of  distinct  groups  of  laws  partly  taking  up  the  same  topics.  Thus  the 
legislation  of  Exod.  xx.-xxiii.  is  partly  repeated  in  ch.  xxxiv.,  and  on  the  passover 
and  feast  of  unleavened  bread  we  have  at  least  six  laws,  which,  if  not  really  dis- 
cordant, are  at  least  so  divergent  in  form  and  conception  that  they  cannot  be 
all  from  the  same  pen.  (Exod.  xii.  1-28,  xiii.  3-10,  xxiii.  15,  xxxiv.  18  ;  Lev. 
xxiii.  5-14,  Deut.  xvi.)     Of  historical  duplicates  the  most  celebrated  are  the  two- 


fold  liistoiy  of  the  creation  and  the  flood,  to  which  we  must  recur  presently.  The 
same  kind  of  thing  is  found  in  the  later  books  ;  for  example,  in  the  account  of 
the  way  in  which  Saul  became  king,  where  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  avoid  the 
conclusion  that  1  Sam.  xi.  1-11  should  attach  directly  to  ch.  x.  16  (c/.  x.  7). 

"  The  extent  to  which  the  historical  books  are  made  up  of  parallel  narratives, 
which,  though  they  cover  the  same  period,  do  not  necessarily  record  the  same 
events,  was  first  clearly  seen  after  Astruc  (1753  A.D.)  observed  that  the  respective 
uses  of  Jehovah  (Lord)  and  Elohim  (God)  as  the  name  of  the  Deity  afford  a 
criterion  by  which  two  documents  can  be  dissected  out  of  the  book  of  Genesis. 
That  the  way  iu  which  the  two  names  are  used  can  only  be  due  to  difference  of 
authorship  is  now  generally  admitted,  for  the  alternation  corresponds  with  such 
important  duplicates  as  the  two  accounts  of  creation,  and  is  regularly  accompanied 
through  a  great  part  of  the  book  by  uumistakeable  peculiarities  of  language  and 
thought,  so  that  it  is  still  possible  to  reconstruct  at  least  the  Elohim  document 
with  a  completeness  which  makes  its  original  independence  and  homogeneity 
matter  of  direct  observation.  The  character  of  this  narrative  is  annalistic,  and 
where  other  material  fails,  blanks  are  supplied  by  genealogical  lists.  Great  weight 
is  laid  on  orderly  development,  and  the  name  Jehovah  is  avoided  in  the  history 
of  the  patriarchs  in  order  to  give  proper  contrast  to  the  ilosaic  period  (c/.  Gen, 
xvii.  1  ;  Exod.  vi.  3)  ;  and,  accordingly,  we  find  that  the  uumistakeable  secondary 
marks  of  this  author  run  through  the  whole  Pentateuch  and  Joshua,  though  the 
exclusive  use  of  Elohim  ceases  at  Exod.  vi.  Of  course  the  disappearance  of  tliis 
criterion  makes  it  less  easy  to  carry  on  an  exact  reconstruction  of  the  later  parts 
of  the  document  ;  but  on  many  points  there  can  be  no  uncertainty,  and  it  is 
clearly  made  out  that  tlie  author  has  strong  priestly  tendencies,  and  devotes  a 
very  large  proportion  of  his  space  to  liturgical  matters.  The  separation  of  this 
document  may  justly  be  called  the  point  of  departure  of  positive  criticism  of  the 
sources  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  present  controversy  turns  mainly  on  its  rela- 
tion to  other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.  Of  these  the  most  important  are — 1.  The 
Jehovistic  narrative,  which  also  begins  with  the  creation,  and  treats  the  early 
history  more  in  the  spirit  of  prophetic  theology  and  idealism,  containing,  for 
example,  the  nan-ative  of  the  fall,  and  the  parts  of  the  history  of  Abraham  which 
are  most  important  for  Old  Testament  theologj'.  That  this  narrative  is  not  a 
mere  supplement  to  the  other,  but  an  independant  whole,  appears  most  plainly  in 
the  story  of  the  flood,  where  two  distinct  accounts  have  certainly  been  interwoven 
by  a  third  hand.  2.  Many  of  the  finest  stories  in  Genesis,  especially  great  part' 
of  the  history  of  Joseph,  agree  with  the  Elohim-document  in  the  name  of  God, 
but  are  widely  divergent  in  other  respects.  Since  the  researches  of  Hupfeld,  a 
third  author,  belonging  to  northern  Israel,  and  specially  interested  in  the  ances- 
tors of  the  northern  tribes,  is  generally  postulated  for  these  sections.  His  literary 
individuality  is  in  truth  shari>ly  marked,  though  the  limits  of  his  contributions 
to  the  Pentateuch  are  obscure."  [The  reader,  by  turning  back  to  p.  28,  and 
reading  on,  will  be  able  to  decide  for  himself  whether  this  be  sound  learning  and 
valuable  information,  or  rationalistic  folly  and  utter  incapacity  to  grasp  the 
mind  of  the  Spirit  in  Divine  Eevelation. — Ed.] 


There  is  a  very  grave  question  at  issue  now  in  the  professing 
church  of  God,  which  branches  out  uniformly  into  many  colla- 
teral points,  all  of  which,  though  in  different  degrees,  affect 
Christianity,  that  is,  the  true  nature  of  Christianity  itself.  The 
root  of  the  whole  question,  however,  is,  Where  is  the  bond,  the 
union,  the  living  association  between  what  is  divine  and  men  ? 
It  takes  the  form  of  Popery  or  Eomanism,  Eitualism  or  Pusey- 
ism^  so  called,  in  the  Episcopal  body  in  England  and  in  this 
country  :  the  Stahl  and  Hengstenberg  school  in  Lutheran  Ger- 
many :  and  in  what  is  called  Mercersburg  theology  among  the 
Dutch  Pteformed  here.^  The  last  is  allied  to  a  new  school  in 
Germany,  propagating  actively  its  views  on  the  Person  of 
Christ ;  but  all,  however  various  the  shades  of  theology,  are 
essentially  the  same.  They  all  hold  union  to  take  place  in  the 
incarnation,  to  be  with  humanity,  not  consequent  on  redemption 
of  believers  with  a  glorified  Christ ;  and,  without  in  words 
denying  it,  they  put  redemption  entirely  in  the  shade.  Eedemp- 
tion,  in  their  view,  is  not  really  accomplished  by  the  atonement 
but  by  the  incarnation. 

Their  system  of  union  developes  itself  in  the  life-giving 
power  of  sacraments  ;  and  in  insisting  on  the  importance  and 
organic  power  and  authority  of  the  church :  but  meaning 
thereby  the  clergy.  Where  the  German  school  has  infected  it, 
it  introduces  the  organic  and  historic  develoj)ment  of  Christ's 
life  in  the  world,  and  that  in  all  arts  and  sciences,  a  kind  of 

'  Union  with  God,  spoken  of  by  both  Evangelicals  and  Eitualists,  is  a  thing 
(save,  of  course,  iu  the  person  of  Christ)  unknown  to  Scripture.         -  America. 



Christological  pantheism  :  in  all  cases,  the  mystical  power  of 
the  clergy,  and  organism  of  the  life-giving  power  of  the  sacra- 
ments, which  the  clergy  alone  can  introduce  into  them,  is  its 
practical  character.  It  slights  the  written  word  and  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  and,  while  speaking  much  of  historical 
development,  carefully  avoids  historical  facts,  as  well  as  Scrip- 
tural statements,  and  the  direct  authority  of  the  word  of  God 
over  the  soul  as  from  God  Himself  That  is,  private  interpret- 
ation, the  church,  the  creed,  the  Ecumenical  Council,  in  result, 
the  clergy,  are  to  be  trusted.  The  church  has  developed  the 
imperfect  elements  of  Scripture ;  and  theology  (which  is  of  course 
in  the  hands  of  the  doctors,  that  is,  themselves)  is  alone  full  and 
formal  truth. 

It  is  remarkable  how  God  is  set  aside  in  this  system,  and 
man,  humanity,  exalted  and  made  everything  of,  even  in  Christ 
and  His  work,  as  far  as  His  work  is  made  of  any  account. 

I  shall  notice  some  details,  but  I  shall  take  up  the  root- 
question  as  concerning  every  one,  for  it  is  a  question  of  what 
Christianity  is, — what  the  truth  is.  The  consequences  are  de- 
plorable and  demoralising  wherever  it  prevails  ;  but,  without 
denying  that  there  are  pious  persons  and  real  Christians  ensnared 
by  it,  I  affirm  that,  as  a  system,  it  is  a  denial  of  the  truth  of 
Christianity,  of  Christianity  itself  in  its  foundation  and  vital 
truths,  as  revealing  what  man  is,  and  bringing  him  savingly  to 
God.  I  add  these  last,  words  because  the  error,  save  in  the 
German  school  of  the  system,  is  not  in  the  objective  part  of 
Christianity  (or  no  one  could  be  a  Christian  who  adopted  it), 
but  in  the  application  of  its  efficacious  power,  and  the  way  in 
which  God  has  dealt  with  man.  They  do  not  deny  that  those 
who  oppose  their  system  believe  in  the  Trinity  ;  in  the  incarna- 
tion ;  in  the  true  humanity  of  the  Lord ;  in  the  atonement ;  in  the 
union  of  the  two  natures  in  one  person,  in  the  blessed  Lord : 
as  I  myself  adoringly  recognise  all  this  :  and  the  true  value  of 
the  two  ordinances  established  by  the  Lord,  Baptism  and  the 


Lord's  Supper — ^both,  (and  especially  the  latter  as  a  continuous 
thing  in  the  Christian's  life),  precious  to  his  soul.  I  may  add 
the  exercise  of  ministry  as  given  and  appointed  by  Christ. 
These  are  not  the  questions  at  issue ;  at  least  I  have  nothing 
now  to  do  with  those  who  call  them  in  question.  For  me,  as 
to  all  the  first  truths,  there  is  no  Christianity  without  them, 
nor  orderly  Christianity  without  the  latter.  The  question  is. 
Where  is  the  point  of  contact  between  God  and  man,  these 
things  being  true  ? 

But  I  go  farther  in  what  may  be  considered  agreement  with 
the  school  of  error.  I  do  not  deny,  but  assert  and  affirm 
strongly,  that  the  Lord  established  a  church,  that  is,  an  assembly 
on  earth  ;  which,  in  one  point  of  view,  is  His  body,  formed  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from  heaven  ;  and  which,  in  another 
character,  is  the  habitation  of  God  on  earth  by  the  Spirit  (not 
the  clergy  ;  they  are  in  no  sense  the  church),  this,  (and  the 
word  means  nothing  else,)  is  the  assembly.  But,  though  indi- 
vidual relationship  with  God  is  always  put  in  the  first  place  by 
the  word  of  God  (relationship  with  the  Father  in  grace  and 
Christ,  the  First-born  among  many  brethren,  and  in  responsi- 
bility conscience  and  faith  are  uniformly  individual) ;  yet  God 
did  establish  an  assembly  on  earth,  designated  as  "  the  body  of 
Christ,"  and  as  "  the  habitation  of  God  by  the  Spirit."  Further, 
the  Lord  instituted  two  great  ordinances  in  connection  with  it 
— Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord.  He  established  also  a 
ministry  in  gifts  given  by  Himself  from  on  high — evangelists, 
pastors,  and  teachers,  as  He  founded  it  by  apostles  and  prophets, 
besides  its  being  compacted  by  that  which  every  joint  supplies, 
so  that  it  should,  in  the  edification  of  itself,  increase  with  the 
increase  of  God.  All  this  is  plainly  stated  in  the  word  of  God 
itself.  No  history  is  needed  to  give  it  authority  or  validity. 
The  particular  views  of  Eome,  of  Dr.  Pusey,  or  of  Dr.  Nevin, 
about  these  things,  are  another  question.  They  are  not  inspired  ; 
the  word  of  God  is. 


But  I  go  farther  still.  The  person  of  the  blessed  Lord  is 
the  centre  of  all  Christian  affections  and  all  Christian  truth  for 
the  believer  (and  God  has  given  us  eternal  life  in  Him—"  He 
that  hath  the  Son  hath  life") ;  as,  in  God's  time,  all  things  will 
be  headed  up  in  Him  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  This  is 
supremely  dear  to  the  believer's  heart.  But  how  and  where 
are  men  brought  into  living  association  with  Him  ?  All 
those  to  whom  I  refer  say,  in  the  incarnation  and  the  sacra- 
ments. That  life  is  and  was  in  His  person  is  most  true.  His 
person  is  the  foundation  of  everything  ;  but  where  are  we 
brought  into  association  with  Him  ?  The  formulary  among 
the  Episcopalian  Eitualists  was,  the  sacraments  are  a  continua- 
tion or  extension  of  the  incarnation.  German,  and  American 
theology  borrowed  from  the  Germans,  has  added  a  principle  of 
historical  development  before  as  well  as  after  the  incarnation, 
which  the  soberer  Episcopalians  have  not  adopted,  as  far  as  I 
am  aware,  but  confine  themselves  to  the  continuation  of  the  in- 
carnation of  the  Son  of  God  by  the  sacraments  in  the  Church, 
and  have  not  followed  the  reveries  of  the  Germans  ;  but  the 
doctrine,  as  far  as  the  truth  I  am  occupied  with  is  concerned, 
is  the  same. 

The  atonement  loses  all  its  importance  as  a  redeeming  M^ork  ; 
at-one-ment,  as  Irving  said,  and  they  say,  was  in  the  Word 
being  made  flesh  and  receiving  humanity  in  His  own  person. 
Our  connection  with  God  is  restored  by  incarnation.  Many 
grave  errors  flow  from  this  as  to  justification  and  the  like  ;  but 
I  confine  myself  to  the  root  of  the  matter.  Tims  it  is  stated 
in  this  country  :  ^ 

"The  Son  of  God  ....  assumed  humanity  and  became 
the  universal  man,  standing  related  to  the  race  as  redeemed  in 
Him,  as  the  first  Adam  stood  related  to  the  race  as  fallen  in  Him. 
The  humanity  of  the  one  is  as  broad,  as  universal,  and  compre- 
hensive, as  the  humanity  of  the  other."     "  The  very  assumption 

^  America. 


of  that  nature,  in  its  sinless  perfection,  was  itself  the  redemption 
of  humanity.  In  Him  humanity  stands  redeemed  already,  as 
the  source  and  fountain  of  the  new  race  which  proceeds  from 
Him."  "The  church  becomes,  accordingly,  an  object  of  faith, 
inasmuch  as  it  is  a  continuation  of  the  mystery  of  the  incarna- 
tion." "  The  sacrament  of  baptism  is  the  divinely  instituted 
means  by  which,  ordinarily,  the  life-communication  takes 

How  far  this  goes  in  the  hands  of  the  followers  of  the  Ger- 
mans, and  how  it  lowers  redemption  to  what  is  human,  may  be 
seen  in  what  follows  : — "  He,  taking  upon  Himself  our  nature, 
not  simply  as  an  individual,  to  stand  forth  as  one  in  the  teeming 
race  of  Adam  .  .  .  but  grasping  the  very  foundation  of  our 
human  existence,  appropriates  it  to  HimseK  as  the  generic  force 
and  life  of  our  race  ;  not  a  man,  but  tlie,  man.  The  second 
Adam,  like  unto  the  first,  as  the  bearer  of  the  totality  of  our 
humanity,  comprehending  in  His  person  the  idhoh  of  our  human 
life."  Now  that  He  was  "  the  last  (not  second)  Adam  "  is  all  right, 
and  that  He  took  all  that  constitutes  a  man  is  all  true,  but  this 
means  a  vast  deal  more.  "  For  man  is  man,  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  term,  only  as  his  life  reveals  itself  in  the  outward 
forms  of  the  institutions  and  relations  in  which  it  becomes 
actual  in  the  world.  The  family,  the  state,  learning  in  all  its 
departments,  the  arts,  the  sciences,  and  all  monuments  besides 
of  the  activity  of  the  human  soul,  stand  not  apart  from,  but  are 
truly  comprehended  in,  the  constitution  of  our  human  life. 
These  departments,  if  we  may  so  call  them,  and  all  others  be- 
sides, comprehended  thus  in  the  wonderful  constitution  of  our 
humanity,  must  come  at  last  to  a  vital  union  with  the  divine. 
Failure  in  this  is  failure  equally  deep  and  disastrous  in  the  pur- 
pose of  its  being  ;  it  is  death.  But  to  attain  to  this  is  to  attain 
to  life  and  immortality !  It  was  in  this  comprehensive  sense 
that  the  Logos  apprehended  our  nature,  and  took  it  into  union 
with  His  divinity.     These  are  the  '  all  things  on  earth '  which 


tlie  divine  will  would  gather  up  in  Christ,  even  in  Him,  of 
which  St.  Paul  speaks." 

I  give  this  long  quotation  to  show  how  entirely  man,  as  in 
and  for  this  world,  is  in  the  mind  of  those  degraded,  for  such  it 
is,  by  this  system.  Not  a  trace  of  spiritual  blessing  in  heavenly 
places  in  Christ,  to  say  nothing  of  God  Himself,  communion 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son.  It  is  bringing  Christ  and  the 
effect  of  His  incarnation  to  the  sphere  of  the  mere  natural  man ; 
indeed  this  is  stated  in  terms.     Again  : 

"  Moreover,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  humanity  of 
Christ  is,  and  must  necessarily  be,  co-extensive  with  Adam's. 
■Its  remedial  powers  must  be  commensurate  with  the  ruins  of 
the  fall,  and  reveal  themselves  wherever  these  effects  are  to  be 
found.  We  look,  therefore,  for  their  regenerating  and  sanctifying 
potencies  in  every  department  of  human  life.  The  family,  the 
state,  our  social  relations  in  all  their  phases,  art,  science,  learn- 
ing, and  all  the  outward  revelations  of  human  powers,  are 
gathered  up  in  this  supernatural  constitution,"  etc.  "  There  all 
things  in  earth  were  gathered  up  and  completed  in  the  person  of 
Christ,  and  the  mission  of  the  church  on  earth  is  to  carry  for- 
ward this  germinal  realisation  to  an  actual  development  in  the 
world."  Christ  come  in  the  flesh  in  this  world,  the  incarnation 
prolonged  (to  speak  with  them)  in  the  church,  has  its  object  in 
this  world  to  take  up  human  development  in  what  are  man's 
natural  faculties.  This  is  "  the  meaning  and  design  'of  the  in- 
carnation of  our  Lord,  and  the  constitution  and  powers  of  His 
holy  body,  the  church."  Of  a  citizenship  in  heaven,  or  affec- 
tions on  tilings  above,  not  on  things  on  the  earth  ; — not  a  trace, 
save  the  denial  of  it.  I  add  another  short  quotation  to  show  it 
is  systematic  teaching,  not  merely  individual  opinion. 

"The  gospel  is  emphatically  a  world-saving  power.  It 
enters  into  the  life  of  the  world  in  an  organic  way  .... 
the  scheme  that  says,  '  There  can  be  no  real  marriage  of  divine 
and  human  powers,  of  the  life  of  Christ  with  the  life  of  the  race, 


in  an  abiding,  historical,  sacramental  union,  and  continuing  in 
the  world  in  such  a  way  as  to  carry  forward  society  in  a  living 
process  of  life  and  growth  in  knowledge,  and  in  faith,  and  in 
hope,  and  in  charity,  and  in  all  that  belongs  to  the  existence  of 
an  emancipated  and  regenerated  humanity'  ...  is  not  only 
unreal  and  unhistorical,  but  it  seems  to  run  directly  in  the 
face  of  the  plainest  teachings  of  the  word  of  God.  This  teaches 
that  God  is  in  Christ,  and  that  Christ  is  the  life  of  the  world," 
etc.  This  writer,  indeed,  though  making  God  create  the  world 
by  His  omnipotence,  yet,  as  to  its  present  form,  whether  accom- 
plished in  six  days  or  six  long  geological  periods,  tells  us  that 
"  all  nature  was  made  to  rise,  by  an  inherent  law  and  tendency, 
from  one  gradation  of  development  to  another,  under  the  moulding 
generic  power  of  the  Almighty,  until,  finally,  the  whole  culmi- 
nated in  the  creation  of  man,"  which  is  little  less  than  Darwin- 
ianism,  and  the  progress  from  atomic  cellules  by  "  an  inherent 
law  and  tendency." 

But  we  must  now  see  the  introduction  of  this  life  in  Christ. 
"  Christological  theology  must  be  historical "  .  .  .  "  His  (Christ's) 
deepest,  truest,  and  most  real  coming  through  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  a  coming  in  flesh  and  blood,  a  coming  in  and  through 
generations,  a  coming  in  history ;  not  in  the  events  of  history 
merely,  but  in  that  human  life  in  which  lay  and  from  which  ope- 
rated the  life  of  history.  Yea,  more,  if  we  acknowledge,  as  all 
Christian  historians  do,  that  the  incarnation  is  premeditated  in 
heathenism,  we  are  in  like  manner  impelled  to  escape  the  subtle 
deception  into  which  the  mind  so  naturally  falls,  that  this  same 
prevening  heathen  history  could  have  such  a  relation  to  the  in- 
carnation, if  the  eternal  Logos  had  not  such  an  aptitude  for  the 
human  as  that  His  own  life  should  also  be  in  some  kind  of 
underlying  and  underacting  communion  with  the  life  of  whose 
activities  this  heathen  prophetic  history  is  the  creation  and  the 
result.  If  such  be  the  relation  of  the  life  of  the  Logos  to  human 
life  and  history,  previous   to  His  actual  incarnation,  how  in- 


finitely  deeper  and  more  certain  must  Le  that  relation  after 
He  has  actually  entered  the  human  in  a  personal  way,  and 
so  joined  His  own  divine-human  life  with  the  life  and  history 
of  the  race  !  Let  us  not  deceive  our  own  minds  by  separating 
history  from  life.  Christian  history,  the  history  of  Christianity, 
is  the  coming  of  Christ,"  etc.  "  Thus  Christ  came  in  human- 
ity as  its  genuine  principle  of  life,  before  He  was  actually  incar- 
nate in  the  fulness  of  time.  But  the  mystery  was  not  completed 
in  this  pervenient  union  of  His  with  humanity." 

Now,  that  the  Son  quickened  souls,  from  Adam  onwards,  no 
Christian,  I  suppose,  would  deny.  That  in  God  we  live,  move, 
and  have  our  being,  so  that  we  are,  in  a  certain  sense.  His  off- 
spring, we  know  is  Scriptural  truth.  But  this  is  vastly  more. 
It  is  in  heathenism,  as  such,  communion  with  divine  life  in 
Christ.  The  whole  of  this  argument  (and  here  the  theologians 
run  completely  into  the  same  channel  both  here  and  in  Europe, 
with  a  large  class  of  Germans  whose  system  is  infidel)  con- 
founds the  wants  and  cravings  of  a  being  created  for  God,  when 
they  have  Him  not,  with  the  answer  that  grace  gives  to  those 
cravings  in  Christ :  a  very  grave  blunder. 

But  I  must  pursue  my  subject.  To  notice  all  their  errors 
would  be  endless.  It  is  the  antiscriptural,  antichristian  char- 
acter of  the  system,  as  a  whole,  which  occupies  me.  "  That 
His  saving  life  exerts  its  redeeming  and  restoring  power  in 
humanity,"  and  "  that  the  person  of  the  God-man,  which  is  con- 
stituted by  the  real  and  true  union  of  the  divine  and  human,  is 
the  ultimate  generic  principle  of  redemption,  the  generic  head 
of  the  new  humanity."  "  He  Avas  the  principle  of  that  here- 
ditary blessing  which  laid  hold  of  human  life  generally." 

Now,  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  in  the  counsels  and  wisdom  of 
God  before  the  worlds  (Pro v.  viii.).  His  delight  (Christ's,  as  wis- 
dom) was  in  the  sons  of  men.  His  incarnation,  as  celebrated 
by  angels,  was  the  expression  of  good  pleasure  in  men  (Luke  ii.) 
They  were  the  race  of  His  predilection,  and  it  was  in  Christ,  the 


"Word  made  flesh,  that  this  was  to  be  accomplished.  But  our 
theologians  use  this  truth  as  a  basis  to  their  own  speculations. 
Adam  was  only  a  candidate  for  the  grace  of  life/  to  be  enjoyed 
only  in  the  event  of  his  "predetermination  admitting  him  into 
the  wonderfully  mysterious  sacrament  of  the  tree  of  life."  It  is 
"  not,  and  never  was,  designed  by  the  Creator  that  man  should 
have  life  in  himself,  but  only  as  he  stood  in  vital  union  with 
His  own  being  as  the  absolute  ground  and  source  of  all  life. 
To  be  out  of  and  separated  from  God  is  to  be  dead,  to  be  in 
union  with  Him  is  to  have  life."  Note  well  :  this  denies  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  and  confounds  permanent  life  with  the 
divine  life  as  possessed  in  Christ.  Either  Adam,  as  created,  had 
not  life  in  himself  by  creation,  or  he  was  united  with  God  already, 
and  fell  when  he  was.  Nay,  the  very  devils  could  not  exist. 
It  is  a  theory  involving  ten  thousand  absurdities  and  heresies, 
at  once  confounding  death  and  separation  from  God  ;  spiritual 
death  with  dying  as  a  creature,  and  life,  as  existence,  with  divine 
life  in  communion  with  God.  As  to  union  with  God,  though 
used  by  many  Christians,  save  as  regards  the  person  of  Christ 
it  is  a  wholly  false  and  unscriptural  idea  ;  it  is  always  with 
Christ  become  a  man,  and  risen  from  the  dead,  that  we  have 

But  I  continue  :  "  In  what  form  the  reunion  of  the  human 
and  divine  would  have  taken  place,  had  not  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  here  to  inquire.  It  is  enough 
to  know  that  it  would  have  taken  place.  .  .  .  There  was  no  mis- 
calculation in  the  divine  reckonings  which  the  presence  of  sin 
for  the  first  time  revealed."  However,  sin  came  in  ;  but  "  the 
union  of  the  human  and  divine  was  originally  involved  in 
the  plan  of  creation,  as  its  ultimate  design  and  end ;  in  this 
union  as  it  holds  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  do  we  find  the 
revelation  of  God's  will  touching  this  precise  interest."     "The 

^  This  is  reallj'  the  fouudation  of  auniliilatiouism.      Would  he  have  died  if 
he  had  not  eaten  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  ? 


appearance  of  sin  as  a  disturbing  force,  growing  out  of  man's 
free  self-determining  power,  was  confronted  immediately  by 
this  very  resource  for  its  effectual  overthrow."  It  is  not  thus 
denied  that  Christ's  going  down  to  death,  and  meeting  the 
penalty  of  the  law,  was  needed ;  as  He  took  humanity,  He  took 
it  as  it  was,  subject  to  its  penalties,  and  consequently  died  on 
the  cross.  But,  "  though  finding  in  sin  a  fresh  call  for  the  in- 
carnation, yet  this  determined  not  the  fad.,  but  only  the  form 
under  which  it  should  hold."  "The  archetypal  conception  in 
the  divine  mind,  overthrown  by  the  fraud  and  malice  of  Satan 
in  the  first  Adam,  we  find  in  this  second  Adam  in  the  complete 
elimination  of  all  the  abnormal  forces,  carried  along  in  the  bosom 
of  humanity,  not  only  restored  and  realised,  but  perfected  and 
advanced."  This  is  in  Christ  incarnate  down  here.  He  "  ex- 
hibited what,  from  the  start,  lay  really  and  truly  in  the  normal 
sense  of  humanity."  Nay,  even  "the  church,  it  fully  appears, 
was  no  necessity  of  the  fall.  It  existed  anterior  to  the  accident 
of  sin  ;  and,  had  the  fall  never  occurred,  would  have  continued, 
though  not  under  the  subsequent  form  of  mediatorial  offices 
and  propitiatory  agencies,  but  as  a  divine  instrumentality, 
answering  man's  normal  development.  It  sprang  necessarily 
out  of  our  moral  constitution  and  our  relation  to  God  as  the 
subjects  of  His  moral  government."  "  True  to  this  law  of  his 
own  moral  being,  he  would  have  been  advanced,  M-ithout  bodily 
decay  and  decomposition,  to  a  state  of  full  glorification,  but  only 
through  the  appearance,  ultimately,  of  tlie  Logos  incarnate." 
Thus  sin  was  an  accident,  impotent,  as  is  said  elsewhere,  to 
hinder  the  course  of  God's  purposes,  foreseen  indeed  of  God  ;  and 
redemption  by  blood  itself,  an  accident,  a  provision,  a  "  change 
of  procedure,"  "  a  subsequent  form,"  dependent  on  this  accident. 
"  But  it  will  be  borne  in  mind  that  Christ  was  not  a  new 
humanity,  a  creation  dc  novo ;  His  was  Adam's  humanity  as 
under  the  power  of  the  curse."  "  In  its  commencement  it  was 
human  nature,  the  same  as  that  of  His  virgin  mother,  and 


therefore  fallen."    It  is  added  indeed,  "  From  the  moment  of  the 
holy  conception  sin  was  eliminated." 

But  this  is  not  the  doctrine  of  their  leading  theologian,  and  in  a 
discourse  published  by  the  request  of  the  Synod  he  holds  that  "on 
the  divine  side,  that  which  was  divine  was  mediated  by  the  Divine 
Spirit,  and  so  found  pure  generical  beginning  in  fallen  and 
depraved  human  nature.  In  this  bosom  of  the  abnormal  human 
the  divine  gradually  assumed  the  normal  human,  by  a  steady 
victory  over  corrupt  human  nature  in  the  womb,  forward  to  the 
birth  of  the  Holy  Child."  "  So  on  through  life,  it  is  fully 
and  naturally  human.  Though  as  human  He  is  tempted,  truly 
and  really  tempted,  He  is  always  victorious  over  defect  and 
corruption  of  that  nature."  Under  the  law  "which  He  has 
assumed,  and  which  ever  presses  upon  and  vitally  touches  His 
pure  life  at  every  point,  thus  presenting  to  the  world  the 
picture  ...  of  a  sinless  man.  Thus  in  His  own  personal 
human  nature  He  obtained,  first  of  all,  a  complete  victory  over 
that  abnormal  humanity  with  which  He  had  formed  a  union, 
presenting  it  fully  restored  to  its  normal  purity,  in  His  own 
person,  especially  exhausting  and  overcoming  at  every  point  the 
virus  of  sin  and  death,  till  He  came  forth  from  the  grave 
victorious  over  its  last  power  and  penalty,  and  glorified  human 
nature  in  the  heavens.  All  this  was  one  continuous  silently- 
working,  steady,  victorious  miracle,  going  forward  in  His  own 
person,  a  victory  of  sinlessness  overcoming  depravity  by  the 
process  of  His  divine  human  life  in  the  womb.  Though  made 
of  tills  woman  .  .  .  He  was  still  made  under  the  law,  that 
is.  His  human  nature  had  to  be  purely  developed  out  of  the 
bosom  of  an  impure  humanity."  (See  Eom.  viii.  2 ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  4.) 
I  add  the  quotations  to  show  that  they  carry  the  principle  on 
to  the  cross.^ 

1  Note  tlie  absurdity  of  the  sj'stem,  a  divine-human  life  which  was  sinless, 
overcoming  depravity  in  an  impure  humanity.  So  He  had  two  humanities  in 
the  womb,  besides  what  was  divine.  How  thoroughly  mentally  degi-ading  the 
system  is  ! 


This  is  pure  Irvingism.  A  sinless  effect  was  produced,  but 
by  His  being  victorious  over  an  evil  nature  within  :  where  defect 
and  corruption  existed,  He  restored  it  to  purity,  but  it  was 
with  corrupt  abnormal  humanity  He  had  formed  a  union  and 
had  to  overcome  the  virus  of  sin.  Where  was  it  ?  "  This  victory 
was  first  in  Himself,  that  it  might  be  also  for  us.  It  had  to 
take  place  in  Him,  because  He  is  the  principle  and  fountain  of 
life  to  all.  '  For  their  sakes  I  sanctify  myself,  that  they  also 
might  be  sanctified  through  the  truth.'  Let  tliese  great  words 
be  understood."  They  are  wholly  misunderstood.  They  were 
spoken  when  He  was  going  to  His  Father  (John  xvii.),  as  He 
says  in  the  passage,  "  Now,  I  am  no  more  in  the  world."  He 
was  setting  Himself  apart  as  the  glorified  Man  in  heaven  ;  not 
what  He  had  been  doing  all  His  life.  He  knew  no  sin.  It  was 
a  "  holy  thing  "  that  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

So,  to  the  same  purpose,  is  quoted  by  them,  "  He  learned 
obedience,"  and  "  being  made  perfect."  "  As  His  own  divine 
human  life  thus  sanctified  and  perfected"  (think  of  a  divine  life 
needing  sanctification !)  "  was  to  become  the  restoring  and  perfect- 
ing life  of  humanity,  it  had  to  extend  beyond  Himself,  that  it 
might  begin  and  carry  forward  to  a  like  victory  fallen  and 
depraved  human  nature  in  others."  "  But  it  must  lay  hold  also 
on  the  fallen  world  beyond  man."  "  And  all  the  particular 
miracles  wrought  by  Him  are  only  individual  manifestations  of 
that  same  divine  human  miracle  life."  "  The  miracle  is  super- 
natural because  its  force  is  the  life  of  a  higher  world."  Conse- 
quently, dividing  the  Eed  Sea  and  the  Jordan  was  no  miracle, 
nor  the  earth  opening  and  swallowing  up  Dathan  and  Abiram. 
Christ's  divine  works  were  miracles  of  good  :  but  the  definition 
is  as  false  as  the  doctrine  is. 

I  do  not  go  into  all  this  system,  fully  developed  as  it  is  in 
Europe,  and  borrowed  here.  "  Human  nature  in  its  creation 
.  .  .  free  from  all  sin  .  .  .  was  not  yet  perfect,  but  awaited  process 
...  in  order  to  become  perfect.     How  much  more  was  such  a 


process  of  development,  not  only  possible,  but  also  necessary,  in 
the  fallen  humanity  which  the  Son  of  God  assumed."     "  "We 
assent  here,  with  Lange,  that  the  very  idea  of  temptation  implies 
the  possibility  of  sinning."     "  His  triumph  over  the  temptation 
of  the  devil  was  a  personal  victory,  a  step  in  the  process  of  His 
own  perfecting  of  Himself,  as  well  as  for  the  benefit  of  His 
people."      "  This  view  is   required  by  the   nature  of  Clirist's 
human  will,"     It  is  then  said,  "  if  the  human  in  the  person  of 
Christ  had  been  compelled  by  an  overshadowing  power  to  will 
as  it  did."     But  this  flows  from  their  idea  that  the  corruption 
and  "  virus  of  sin,"  of  a  fallen  abnormal  nature  was  there.     The 
non-possibility  of  sinning  did  not  even  arise  from  a  compelling 
power,  for  then,  without  that  power.  He  might.     It  would  not 
have  been  the  holiness  of  His  nature,  but  from  the  intrinsic 
lightness  of  Christ's  will,  in  His  holy  person,  as  a  man.     Their 
darkened  understandings   have   not  been  able  to   distinguish 
between  morally  impossible,  and  here  absolutely  so,  and  im- 
possibility by  compulsion ;  because  they  have  a  false  unholy 
Christ.     The  Christ  of  God  had  no  inclination  to  sin.     His  will 
was  only  to  obey  :  and  He  was  led  of  tlie  Spirit  to  be  tempted. 
As  regards  the  sympathy  of  the  Lord,  on  the  ground  of 
which  His  liability  to  inward  temptations,  and  even  His  pecca- 
bility, is  insisted  on,  it  fails  altogether.   For  the  sorrow  and  dis- 
couragement of  sincere  souls  do  not  come  from  the  existence 
of  sin  in,  the  flesh,  but  much  more  from  their  yielding  to  it. 
Now,  if  they  are  to  get  sympathy  here  by  Christ  being  in  the 
same  state.  He  must  have  failed.     But  then  all  is  lost.     And  if 
not,  the  whole  argument  is  proved  false  on  its  very  base.    Such 
persons  do  not  know  what  true  deliverance  is.     Nor  do  I  ask 
for  sympathy  for  sin,  but  the  word  to  judge  it,  and  deliverance 
from  its  power  by  redemption  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  know- 
ledge that  I  have  no  strength.    The  advocacy  of  Christ  to  restore 
communion  if  \ve  do  fail,  when  we  are  free  from  the  law  of  sin 
and  death,  is  founded  on  righteousness  and  propitiation. 


But  as  I  am  on  this  point,  I  add,  they  have  no  true  Christ 
at  all.  I  read,  "  How  such  human  nature,  as  body,  soul,  and 
spirit,  including  a  human  will,  could  be  held  in  personal  union 
with  the  divine,  so  that  this  humanity  was  complete,  without 
a  human  personality  or  ego,  we  cannot  understand,  but  we 
believe  it  is  a  mystery  revealed  for  faith."  Where  ?  Why  does 
the  blessed  Lord  say,  "  Not  my  will  but  Thine  ?"  Why  does  He 
say,  "  ]\Iy  God,  my  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me  ?"  if  there 
was  no  ego,  no  human  personality  ?  Why  do  the  Hebrews  quote, 
"  will  I  sing  praise,"  and  "  will  put  my  trust  in  Him,"  "  behold 
I  and  the  children  which  God  hath  given  me,"  if  there  was  no 
I  (ego)  ?  Why  does  He  say,  "  My  God  and  your  God,  my  Father 
and  your  Father"  (not  our),  if  there  was  no  personality?^  And 
this  last  remark,  that  Christ  never  says  "  our"  with  His  dis- 
ciples, I  borrow  from  a  European  minister  of  some  note, 
thoroughly  imbued  with  the  German  system,  where  it  is  at 
home,  not  borrowed,  and  itself  spoiled,  as  it  is  at  Mercersburg. 
And  this  last  statement,  that  Christ  had  no  human  personality, 
no  ego,  which  is  really  heresy  (though  God  and  man  were  united 
in  one  person),  and  the  mere  folly  of  man  attempting  to  fathom 
the  mystery  of  His  person,  when  He  has  said,  "  ISTo  man  knoweth 
the  Son,  but  the  Father,"  is  found  in  the  Article  of  one  by  no 
means  the  worst  of  their  doctors.  His  antecedent  respect  for 
the  blessed  Lord  has  not  been  destroyed,  as  in  others  of  them. 
But  all  hold  it  was  corrupt  fallen  human  nature  which  He  took 
and  had  ;  not  that  He  took  human  nature  from  a  fallen  motlier, 

^  I  am  quite  aware  of  and  accept  the  ordinary  orthodox  statement  of  two 
natures  in  one  person,  though  what  was  at  first  insisted  on  as  orthodox  as  to  \nro- 
<TTa<ns  was  afterwards  condemned,  and  the  meaning  of  the  word  clianged  ;  but 
the  statements  quoted  in  the  text  are  really  monothelite.  It  shows  the  danger  of 
those  early  discussions,  for  the  simple  faith  that  Jesus  was  God  and  man  in  one 
person  can  be  easily  accepted  as  plain  and  vital  truth  ;  but  the  moment  you 
deny  personality  in  the  man  Christ  Jesus  you  run  into  a  thousand  difficulties  and 
errors.  What  is  really  denied  is  Christ's  individuality  as  a  man,  as  it  is  in  terms 


but  without  sin,  miraculously,  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
But  he  is  the  least  bad  on  this  point. 

But  my  object  here  is  to  bring  the  system  fully  into  the 
light.  Hence  I  quote  several  passages  to  show  it  is  the  system, 
not  individual  opinion.  Thus  another  says  to  us,  "  The  tempta- 
bility  of  Christ  grew  out  of  His  peccability  ;  His  peccability  out 
of  the  realness  of  the  human  side  of  His  being.  "What  is  less 
than  infinite  is  temptable  and  peccable.  Christ's  humanity  M-as 
less  than  infinite;  therefore  His  humanity  might  have  been  over- 
thrown." And  that,  note,  united  in  one  ycrson  to  Godhead, 
without  there  being  even  an  I,  or  human  personality  —  a  word 
wrongly  used  really — in  His  human  nature  !  Was  ever  such  folly 
and  confusion?  God  united  to  fallen  humanity,  with  defect 
and  corruption  and  the  virus  of  sin  in  it !  My  hand  revolts  at 
writing  such  blasphemous  absurdities. 

This  taking  the  Itillen  human  nature,  the  ultimate  generic 
principle  of  redemption,  "  accounts  for  the  striking  analogy  be- 
tween the  birth  of  the  God-man^  and  the  new  birth  of  every 
human  soul  that  is  now  born  from  Him.  Both  alike  are  a  birth  to 
a  true  and  pure  human  life,  out  of  a  fallen  and  defiled  humanity, 
by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  "  This  birth  is  vouchsafed 
to  as  many  as  receive  Him."  This  last  gross  misapplication 
(indeed  false  sense)  of  John  i.  12  I  quote,  as  connecting  itself 
with  the  subsequent  teaching  as  to  baptism.  I  add  another  here, 
to  show  the  strange  heretical  confusion  of  tliose  teachers :  "  If 
therefore  we  say  that  in  baptism  a  real  immanence  of  the  nature 
of  Christ  and  of  human  nature,  a  mysterious  oneness  of  His  holy 
essence  and  the  sinful  essence  of  man,  is  brought  about,  we  also 
hold  fast  to  the  idea  that  this  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  an  imma- 
nence finished  and  immediate,  but  one  endless  beginning." 
Think  of  one  endless  beginning,  of  a  oneness  of  Christ's  holy 
essence  and  the  sinful  essence  of  man  !  Is  this  endless  oneness  (!) 
of  holy  essence  and  sinful  essence  a  moral  oneness,  or  what? 
'  Strange  to  say,  this  expression  was  utterly  condemned  as  heresy  in  the  early  ages. 


We  have  thus  the  Lord's  incarnation,  the  point  where  (they 
say)  He  connects  Himself  with  human  nature ;  not  merely  per 
sonally,  or  rather  not  personally  (so  they  expressly  say),  but  in 
nature  as  the  new  head  of  the  race  (He  is  not  a  man,  not  a 
human  personality,  but)  with  humanity,  and  that  fallen  humanity 
the  new  head  of  the  race.  This  is  continued  in  men  by  a 
new  birth,  the  continuation  of  this  divine  human  life,  and  this 
last  not  by  the  word,  but  by  baptism,  through  which  there  is  a 
mysterious  oneness  of  His  holy  and  man's  sinful  essence,  and  this 
forms  the  body  of  Christ !  I  must  give  some  quotations  to  make 
the  last  point  evident.  The  general  statement  is  thus  :  "  The 
Spirit  in  Christ,  the  Spirit  having  entered  into  the  apostles  in  the 
mystery  of  Pentecost  extraordinarily,  the  Spirit,  by  their  divinely 
appointed  ministrations,  through  holy  baptism."  Thus  it  grows 
into  a  holy  temple.  "  The  life  of  Christ  infuses  itself  through 
the  foundation  and  the  entire  organism  of  this  life-building." 

Further,  preaching  presents  the  claims  to  us  :  "  This 
preaching  is  the  means  by  which  the  quickening  energy  of  the 
Spirit  opens  the  blinded  eye  of  faith  to  an  apprehension  of  the 
sinner's  estate  as  dead,  and  the  spiritual  discernment  of  the 
kingdom  of  life,  as  the  power  of  deliverance  from  this  ruin. 
Now,  this  faith  is  the  organ  of  the  human  spirit  by  which  the 
objective  supernatural  order  is  discerned,  and  its  participation  is 
made  possible.  But  this  subjective  power  of  discernment  and 
receptivity  is  by  no  means  one  with  an  actual  entrance  into  it 
and  a  participation  in  its  life.  It  is  only  the  qualification  and 
ability  so  to  do."  "  But  unless  the  human  activity  is  met  by 
a  curative  response  on  the  part  of  Christ,  the  soul  still  remains 
under  the  power  of  death "  (only  it  has  got  its  eyes  opened). 
"  The  office  of  the  apostle,  preparatory  preaching,  is  then  simply 
to  effect  the  preparation  on  the  part  of  the  sinful  subject  for  the 
reception  of  the  communication  of  gi'ace.  The  meeting  of  the 
human  and  divine  activities  we  have  in  the  sacrament  of 


"  The  question  now  is  by  which  of  these  means  specifically 
does  God  design  to  effect  this  wondrous  work  ;  by  the  word 
or  by  the  sacraments  ?  Not  by  the  word,  that  is,  as  we  have 
defined  it,  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  for  this  plain  reason  : 
preaching  is  directed  to  the  mind  or  intellect,  the  moving  of  the 
affections  and  of  tlie  will  is  not  reaching  the  life-centre  of  the 
being  ;  the  intellect  or  mind  is  not  the  life  of  man  ;  all  the 
tliinking,  feeling,  or  willing  that  one  can  do,  though  assisted  in 
their  acts  by  a  divine  power,  cannot  of  themselves  make  a  man 
a  new  creature  in  Christ  Jesus,  This  inward  radical  divine 
work  must  be  accomplished,  therefore,  by  the  only  other 
means — the  sacraments.  .  .  .  Baptism  is  the  ordinance  of  this 
mysterious  union.  .  .  .  Holy  baptism  is  the  means  of  grace 
whereby  the  Holy  Spirit  ingrafts,  for  the  first  time  in  any  sub- 
stantial sense,  the  believer  into  Christ,  and  thus  biings  him  into 
a  state  of  salvation." 

I  continue  :  "In  that  Christ  as  the  unseen  Head  stands  in 
an  inward  indisputable  relation  to  the  church  as  His  mystical 
body — i.e.,  that  total  organisation  of  souls  which  has  its  point 
of  personal  unity  in  Him,  receives  the  power  of  life  from  Him 
through  it,  renews  and  animates  itself,  and  the  members  them- 
selves are  all  its  organs — He,  by  means  of  baptism,  causes  this 
universal  organic  relation  to  become  effectual  in  each  single  new 
point  of  life  wliich  He  appropriates  to  Himself  and  His  Kingdom. 
As  He  continues  His  life  through  the  church  as  a  whole,  so  He 
also  continues  it  through  this  particular  mode  of  individual  life, 
and  therefore  makes  Himself  the  true  beginning  of  life  to  it." 
But,  faith  being  necessary,  as  they  hold,  "  The  child  stands  on 
the  warm  bosom  of  the  faith  of  the  church,  which,  throu'di  its 
parents  or  sponsors,  is  pledged  in  its  behalf."  "  Neither  can  we 
say  that  the  word  is  the  specific  means  of  grace,  whereby  men 
are  ingrafted  into  Christ.  The  word,  as  preached  by  the 
apostles,  was  a  call  to  Christ.  This  was  its  object,  to  turn  the 
attention  of  men  to  Him,  as  the  true  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God, 



tlie  Saviour  of  the  world.  When  they  were  ready  to  receive 
Him,  they  were  baptized  into  Him,  and  thus  made  members  of 
Him."  "  Christian  baptism  then,  we  think  the  Scriptures  teach, 
is  the  sacrament  of  our  incorporation  into  Christ."  "  The  word 
has  to  do  with  truth  ;  the  sacrament  with  life.  The  one  operates 
upon  the  intellect  and  affections  ;  the  other  upon  the  centre  of 
the  being.  By  the  word  men  are  brought  mentally  and  morally 
into  contact  with  Christ ;  by  the  sacrament  into  actual  life 
contact."  "  The  theology  then  we  speak  of  is  churchly.  It 
believes  in  the  church  ...  in  the  bosom  of  which  only, 
not  on  the  outside  of  it,  the  gospel  can  be  expected  to  work,  as 
the  wisdom  of  God  and  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation.  So 
far  as  this  goes,  of  course,  it  owns  and  confesses  that  the  church 
is  a  medium  of  communication  between  Christ  and  His  people." 
(His  people,  then,  are  not  the  church!)  "They  must  be  in  the 
order  of  His  grace,  in  the  sphere  where  this  objective  working 
of  His  grace  is  actually  going  forward,  and  not  in  the  order  of 
nature,  where  it  is  not  going  forward  at  all  (but  where  Satan 
reigns  and  has  his  own  way),  if  the  work  of  redemption  and 
sanctifi  cation  is  to  be  carried  forward  in  them  with  full  effect. 
In  this  sense,  most  assuredly,  salvation  is  of  the  church,  and 
not  of  the  world,"  etc.  Now  that,  as  a  general  truth,  sanctifi  ca- 
tion is  to  be  looked  for  in  the  church,  not  in  the  world,  is  all 
true  enough.  But  the  gospel,  they  say,  cannot  work  outside  of 
it ;  the  poor  heathen  are  in  a  bad  way,  and  redemption  is 
carrying  on,  and  that  only  inside  it.  Salvation  is  not  of  the 
world,  assuredly,  but  it  is  to  the  world,  and  could  never  have 
been,  had  it  not  come  to  it  as  such  ;  nor  could  the  churcli  other- 
wise have  existed.  The  grace  of  God  brings  salvation — where  ? 
to  those  already  within,  or  without,  to  bring  them  in  ? 

There  are  some  points  I  shall  touch  on  just  in  detail ;  but  I 
assert  now  that  the  whole  of  this  system  is  totall}'-  antichristian 
and  antiscriptural :  "  Christ  incarnate  is  the  point  of  union,  and 
His  divine-human  life  is  continued  by  baptism  ;  the  word  is 


not  the  means  of  communicating  it ;  baptism  incorporates  into 
Christ ;  the  accident  of  sin  produced  a  change  of  procedure  (that 
is  all)  :  man  was  to  be  perfected  in  Christ  at  any  rate."  All  this 
is  false  ;  Scripture,  as  to  the  main  points,  teaches  precisely  the 
contrary :  and  God's  glory  is  wholly,  totally  left  out  in  a  most 
extraordinary  way.     Human  perfection  is  the  only  thought. 

Now,  that  it  was  in  the  wondrous  counsels  of  God  to  have 
man  in  the  same  glory  as  His  Son,   is,  however  wonderful, 
blessedly  true.     That  Christ  is  life,  our  life  who  believe,  is 
equally  so.     The  question  is  where  and  how  life  in  this  system, 
not  death,  is  the  means  of  redemption.     "  His  saving  life  exerts 
its   redeeming  and  restoring    power  in  humanity,  not  by  be- 
coming an  individual  man  among  men,  and  then  operating  on 
the  general  life  of  humanity,  but  by  entering  into  it ;  and  this 
entering  is  by  birth,  so  that  the  new  creation  of  human  nature 
in  its  organic  being  falls  together  and  co-ordinate  with  natural 
human  birth.     The  reheading  of  humanity  is  thus  effected  in  its 
very  beginning  by  the  union  of  the  divine-human  life"— (two 
human  livesagain  in  Christ)— "with  human  life  in  a  human  birth, 
even  as  man's  first  creation  was  completed  by  the  conjunction 
of  the  breath  of  God  with  the  human  lifeless  form,  when  God 
made  man  a  living  soul  by  breathing  into  him  the  breath  of  life. 
From  all  this  we  cannot  but  see  that  the  person  of  the  God-man, 
which  is  constituted  by  the  real  and  true  union  of  the  divine 
and  human,  is  the  ultimate  generic  principle  of  redemption." 

Humanity  (in  its  nature)  is  redeemed  by  incarnation ;  and 
this  is  carried  on  by  baptism  !  Now,  all  this  is  definitely 
contrary  to  the  revelation  of  God  ;  and,  in  that  sense,  a  denial  of 
Christianity.  It  is  true  that  conformity  to  the  image  of  God's 
Son  is  the  portion  of  God's  saints  ;  true  that  God's  delight  was 
in  the  sons  of  men  before  the  world,  and  that  the  Lord  did  not 
take  up  angels  but  the  seed  of  Abraham ;  true  that  the  incar- 
nation was  the  expression  of  good  pleasure  in  men ;  true,  not 
that  the  human-divine  life  of  Christ  was  the  generic  source  of 


the  race  before  the  incarnation,  but  that  the  Son  quickened 
souls  from  Adam  onwards  ;  true  that  He  is  now  the  life  of  all  be- 
lievers ;  and  the  Head  of  His  body,  the  church.  But  reunion  with 
Christ,  connection  with  Him,  is  with  a  glorified  Christ,  and  with 
a  glorified  Christ  alone,  after  He  had  accomplished  redemption. 
As  the  first  Adam  sinned  and  was  cast  out  before  he  began  to 
be  the  head  of  the  race  :  so  the  perfect  and  divine  ground  of 
righteousness  was  laid  and  complete  before  Christ,  as  man, 
became  head  of  a  new  race  as  man.  It  is  with  a  glorified  Christ 
that  the  church  is  united,  and  with  no  other.  There  are  many 
errors  and  heresies  in  the  system  ;  but,  if  this  be  so,  the  whole 
system  is  fundamentally  false.  It  is  a  false  Christianity,  "  another 
(a  different)  gospel,  which  is  not  another,"  for  another  there  cannot 
be.  Death  and  redemption  must  come  in  before  we  can  be 
united  to  Christ.  What  Scripture  shows  us  is  the  counsels  of 
God  before  the  world,  for  uniting  us  in  grace  to  Christ  in  glory  ; 
then  God  not  beginning  with  that,  but  with  the  responsible 
man,  Adam.  When  he  had  failed,  and,  fully  tested,  was  found 
an  enemy  of  God,  there  came  the  second  Man,  the  Lord,  to  seek 
and  to  save  what  was  lod ;  and,  when  He  (having  glorified  God 
as  made  sin)  had  accomplished  redemption  in  His  death,  to  unite 
us  with  Himself  as  gone  on  high. 

INIan  failed  in  innocence  :  failed  under  the  law  :  killed  the 
prophets  sent  in  mercy :  and,  then,  God  said,  "  I  have  yet  one 
Son  ;  it  may  be  they  will  reverence  my  Son."  "  J3ut  they  cast 
Him  out  of  the  vineyard  and  slew  Him."  There  was  lawlessness 
without  law  :  transgression  under  law  :  and,  M'hcn  God  came  in 
grace,  absolute  enmity  against  Him.  The  Son  had  quickened 
wliom  He  would,  no  doubt,  all  along  ;  and  their  sins  were  forgiven 
through  Ilis  blood  :  but  man,  as  such,  was,  then,  fully  and  finally 
proved  enmity  against  God.  Flesh  was  not  subject  to  the  law  of 
God,  nor  could  be  ;  and  they  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please 
God.  Not  only  was  man  driven  out  from  God's  paradise  on  earth, 
as  a  sinner ;  but  he  had,  as  far  as  he  could  do  so,  driven  God  out 


when  He  came  in  grace  into  this  world,  "  If  I  had  not  come 
and  spoken  unto  them,  they  had  not  had  sin  ;  but  now  they  have 
no  cloak  for  their  sin.  If  I  had  not  done  among  them  the  works 
which  none  other  man  did,  they  had  not  had  sin  ;  hut  now  they 
have  both  seen  and  hated  both  Me  and  J\Iy  Father."  Such  was 
man,  guilty  in  fact,  and  lost  in  estate.  Eedemption  was  needed  : 
not  merely  a  communication  of  life :  not  redemption  by  a  mystical 
communication  of  life — a  thing  totally  unknown  to  Scripture  ; 
but  redemption  through  Christ's  blood,  propitiation  :  not  the  folly 
of  "  oneness  of  a  holy  essence  and  a  sinful  essence :"  but  to  be  born 
anew,  wholly  "created  in  Christ  Jesus  ;"  being  redeemed  out  of 
the  state  he  was  in,  and  associated  with  the  Eedeemer,  but  only 
when  the  redemption  was  accomplished.  Christ  the  Lord  came,  as 
Sou  of  God,  and  King  of  Israel,  according  to  the  second  Psalm ;  a 
minister  of  the  circumcision,  to  fulfil  the  promises  made  to  the 
fathers  ;  but  the  kings  of  the  earth  stood  up,  and  the  rulers  took 
counsel  together  against  Jehovah  and  against  His  anointed.  He 
was  the  despised  and  rejected  of  men.  He  came  into  the  world  : 
and  the  world  was  made  by  Hira :  and  the  world  knew  Him 
not.  He  came  unto  His  own  :  and  His  own  received  Him  not. 
Those  who  did  receive  Him  were  born,  not  of  the  will  of  man, 
but  of  God. 

Still  His  title  was  good.  He  M'as  also  Son  of  man.  But  when 
was  He  to  take  this  ?  When  rejected,  God  gave  witness  to  Him, 
as  Son  of  God  in  raising  Lazarus,  as  Son  of  David  in  riding  in  on 
the  ass.  One  title  yet  remained ;  when  was  He  to  take  that  up  and 
have  others  connected  with  Him  ?  The  Greeks  came  up  desiring 
to  see  Jesus  :  "The  hour  is  come,"  He  says,  "that  the  Son  of  Man 
should  be  glorified.  Except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the  ground 
and  die,  it  abideth  alone  ;  but  if  it  die  it  bringeth  forth  much 
fruit "  (John  xii)  The  Son  of  man  must  die,  that  others  might 
be  associated  with  Him.  Without  that.  He  abode  alone.  Hence 
it  was,  that,  when  He  had  given  full  testimony,  He  charged  His 
disciples  strictly  to  teU  no  man  that  He  was  the  Christ ;  saying, 


*'  The  Son  of  man  must  suffer  many  things,  and  be  rejected,  and 
put  to  death,  and  rise  again  the  third  day."  Hence,  as  in  the 
former  passage,  in  John  xii.,  His  soul  was  troubled,  and  He 
said,  "  Father,  save  me  from  this  hour,  but  for  this  cause  came 
I  to  this  hour  ;  Father,  glorify  Thy  name  ;"  and  then,  "  I,  if  I 
be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me."  It  was 
a  dying  Saviour  that  was  this  point  of  gathering  ;  one  rejected 
by  man,  but,  by  sovereign  gi'ace,  therein  a  Saviour.  He  rises 
again,  and  is  glorified  to  be  in  the  place  where  He  connects  man 
with  Himself ;  so  that  '  He  that  sanctifieth  and  they  that  are 
sanctified  are  all  of  one,  for  which  cause  He  is  not  ashamed  to 
call  them  brethren."  And  if  He  was  made  a  little  lower  than 
the  angels,  why  so  ? — "  For  the  suffering  of  death,  that  He,  by 
the  grace  of  God,  might  taste  death  for  every  man"  (or  ''thing"). 
And  then  we  read,  "  It  became  Him  for  whom  are  all  things,  and 
by  whom  are  all  things,  in  bringing  many  sons  to  glory,  to  make 
the  captain  of  their  salvation  perfect  through  suffering."  It  was 
not  by  incarnation  He  sanctified  any  one.  "  By  the  which  will 
we  are  sanctified,  by  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ 
once  for  all."  And  now  see  another  aspect  of  it,  the  glory  of  God 
and  of  the  Son  of  man  Himself.  It  became  God,  in  bringing 
many  sons  to  glory,  to  make  the  captain  of  their  salvation  per- 
fect through  suffering.  These  doctors  only  see  man,  humanity, 
aptitude  for  humanity :  God  and  His  glory  have  no  place  in 
their  system.  They  quote  the  passage,  "  The  life  was  the  light 
of  men."  Let  me  finish  the  sentence  for  them,  which  they  do 
not  :  "  And  the  light  shineth  in  darkness,  and  the  darkness 
comprehended  it  not."  Eejection,  and  increased  guilt,  and  proof 
of  sin,  was  the  only  fruit  in  man  of  incarnation  taken  by  itself 
It  was  condemnation,  not  life,  to  others,  "  for  this  is  the  con- 
demnation, that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  loved 
darkness  rather  than  light,  because  their  deeds  were  evil."  When 
the  blessed  Lord,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  made  Himself  of  no 
reputation,  and  took  upon  Him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was 


made  in  the  likeness  of  men,  was  it  there  His  blessed  career 
of  grace  stopped  ?  No  !  *'  Being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  He 
humbled  Himself  and  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death 
of  the  cross  ;  whekefore  also  God  hath  highly  exalted  Him,  and 
given  Him  a  name  above  every  name,  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus 
everyknee  should  bow "  (Philip,  ii.)  Here  it  is  He  takes  the 
place  of  head  of  the  new  creation. 

In  John  xiii.,  as  soon  as  Judas  went  out  to  betray  Him, 
the  Lord  says,  "  Now  is  the  Son  of  man  glorified,  and  God 
is  glorified  in  Him  ;  and  if  God  be  glorified  in  Him,  God  shall 
also  glorify  Him  in  Himself,  and  shall  straightway  glorify  Him;" 
and  He  has,  as  man,  been  exalted  into  the  glory  of  God.  So, 
in  John  xvii.,  "  I  have  finished  the  work  which  Thou  gavest  me 
to  do  ;  and  now,  Father,  glorify  Thou  Me  with  Thine  own  self, 
with  the  glory  I  had  with  Thee  before  the  world  was."  And  it 
is  as  thus  perfected  in  glory  that  He  has  become  "  the  autlior  of 
eternal  salvation  to  all  them  that  obey  Him." 

But  God  was  glorified  in  Him  also.  All  good  and  evil  came 
to  an  issue  on  the  cross,  and  there  only  perfectly.  There  was  man's 
absolute  evil  enmity  against  God  come  into  the  world  in  goodness, 
power  in  grace  that  removed  every  evil  brought  in  by  sin,  even 
to  death  ;  but,  as  that  displayed  God's  presence,  it  drew  out 
man's  enmity.  The  sin  was  not  healed  by  it,  but  made  fully 
manifest  in  its  absolute  character.  They  killed  the  Prince  of 
Life.  There  the  complete  power  of  Satan  over  men  was  mani- 
fested and  exercised, — the  prince  of  this  world  came.  There 
the  perfection  of  man  in  Christ ;  the  prince  of  this  world  had 
nothing  in  Him ;  but  there  was  perfect  love  to  the  Father,  and  per- 
fect obedience  displayed  by  Him.  Perfect  righteousness  against 
sin,  in  God,  was  displayed  as  nowhere  else  ;  but  perfect  love  to 
the  sinner.  Nor  could  these  both  have  been  manifested  together 
in  any  other  way.  Cutting  off  men  might  be  righteous,  but  no 
love  ;  sparing  them  all  without  atonement,  held  to  be  love,  but 
no  righteousness ;  nor  would  destroying  them  all  be  God's  glory 


Lut  defeat  and  failure.  But  through  Christ's  death  God's  majesty, 
what  became  Him,  His  righteousness,  His  infinite  love  and  truth 
— all  have  been  glorified,  and  the  foundation  of  the  new  heavens 
and  new  earth  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness,  laid  in  Christ's 
appearing,  in  the  consummation  of  ages,  to  put  away  sin  by  the 
sacrifice  of  Himself.  "  Through  the  eternal  Spirit  He  offered 
Himself  without  spot  to  God  "  (Heb.  ix.)  All  this  we  are  to 
believe  is  through  the  accident  of  sin,  which  changed  the  mode 
of  procedure,  humanity  being  the  end  of  all !  But  if  the  Prince 
of  this  world  was  cast  out  by  this  wondrous  work,  then  was 
the  judgment  of  this  world. 

"Where  then,  in  all  this,  was  reconciliation  ?  The  incarnate 
"Word,  the  Son  of  God,  was  rejected.  The  premediating  heathen, 
in  whom  Christ's  life  was  germinally  and  prophetically,  as  they 
tell  us,  were — the  apostle  tells  us  (Eph.  ii.) — tvitlioiU  Christ, 
strangers  to  the  covenants  of  promise,  and  without  God  in  the 
world,  given  up  in  judgment  to  a  reprobate  mind  (Eom.  i.), 
because  they  did  not  like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge,  by 
nature  children  of  wrath,  walking  according  to  the  course  of 
this  world,  according  to  the  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air.  And 
how  reconciled — or  where  redemption  ?  In  incarnation,  and  the 
uniting  the  divine  life  in  Christ  with  fallen  humanity  ?  Not  at 
all.  "  And  you,  who  were  alienated  and  enemies  in  your  minds 
by  wicked  works,  yet  now  hath  He  reconciled  in  the  body  of  His 
flesh  through  death"  (Col.  i.)  "  God  vjos  in  Christ  reconciling"' 
— not  He  had  by  incarnation  done  so.  The  world  would  not 
have  Him  in  that  character.  He  was  occupied  with  that  work, 
but  totally  rejected.  Satan  was  the  prince  of  this  world,  and 
the  world  came  under  judgment.  The  wrath  of  God  was 
revealed  :  and  then,  Christ  having  died,  the  work  was  committed 
to  His  ambassadors. 

There  was  no  link  formed  by  Christ  Jesus  with  other  men 
by  His  incarnation.  Preparation  was  made  for  it:  but  it  issued 
in  the  judgment  of  this  world.     If  we  look  to  life  and  union 


in  the  church,  the  body  of  Christ,  its  fullest  and  highest  char- 
acter; is  it  in  incarnation,  or  with  a  glorified  Saviour,  and  (for  us) 
by  a  new  creation  ?  No  union  till  He  is  glorified !  "  What  is 
the  exceeding  greatness  of  His  power  to  usward  who  believe, 
according  to  the  worldng  of  His  mighty  power,  which  He 
wrought  in  Christ,  when  He  raised  Him  from  the  dead,  and  set 
Him  at  His  own  right  hand  in  heavenly  places,  etc.,  and  gave 
Him  to  be  head  over  all  things  to  the  church,  which  is  His 
body,  the  fulness  of  Him  that  filleth  all  in  all,"  He  is  not  in  the 
place  of  head  till  He  is  glorified.  And,  when  we  were  dead  in 
sins,  God  hath  quickened  us  together  with  Christ,  and  raised  us 
up  together,  and  made  us  sit  together  in  heavenly  places  in 
Christ.  We  are  His  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto 
good  works.  If  any  man  be  in  Christ,  it  is  a  new  creation:  "  old 
things  are  passed  away,  all  things  are  become  new."  Therefore 
the  apostle  knew  no  man  after  the  flesh ;  yea,  though  he  had 
known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  henceforth  he  knew  Him 
no  more.  Christ  had  come  as  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews,  as  the 
crown,  if  He  had  been  received,  of  humanity  ;  but  as  such  He 
had  been  rejected,  and  now  it  was  only  through  redemption  by 
blood,  and  as  a  glorified  Christ,  that  man  could  have  connection 
with  Him. 

Does  Peter,  who  enters  less  into  the  counsels  of  God 
than  Paul,  take  a  different  ground  from  tliis  ?  No  ;  "  we  are 
begotten  again  to  a  lively  hope  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ  from  the  dead."  Is  redemption  otherwise  than  by  blood  ? 
"  We  are  redeemed,  not  with  corruptible  things,  as  silver  and 
gold,  but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ ; "  and  we  "  by  him 
do  believe  in  God  who  raised  Him  up  from  the  dead  and  gave 
Him  glory,  that  our  faith  and  hope  might  be  in  God."  It  is  by 
His  stripes  we  are  healed,  and  if  He  be  our  life,  it  is  as  risen. 
In  Col.  as  in  Eph.,  when  we  were  dead  in  sins  He  hath  quickened 
us  together  with  him  :  He  suffered,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that 
He  might  bring  us  to  God.     Hence  in  John  also  (chap,  vi.). 


where  He  speaks  of  the  bread  come  down  from  heaven,  He  takes 
care  to  add,  "  If  ye  eat  not  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink 
His  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you." 

They  tell  us  that  God  has  gathered  together  all  things  in 
Christ.  Scripture  does  not  say  so ;  but  that  God  has  made 
known  to  us  the  mystery  of  His  will,  that  in  the  dispensation 
of  the  fulness  of  times  He  will  do  so,  in  whom  (Christ)  we 
have  received  an  inheritance,  and  that  we  are  sealed  with  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  promise,  which  is  the  earnest  of  our  inheritance, 
till  the  redemption  of  the  purchased  possession  to  the  praise  of 
His  glory  (Eph.  i.)  So,  in  Eomans,  we  are  heirs  of  God  and  joint 
heirs  with  Christ,  if  so  be  we  suffer  with  Him  that  we  may  be 
glorified  together.  Not  only  so,  but  we  are  assured  that  all  things 
are  not  put  under  Christ  now  (Heb.  ii.),  but  He  is  crowned  with 
glory  and  honour,  according  to  Ps.  viii.,  and  He  is  sitting,  not 
on  His  own  throne  yet,  but  on  His  Father's,  expecting,  at  the 
right  hand  of  the  Majesty  in  the  heavens,  till  His  enemies  be 
made  His  footstool.  So  Peter :  The  prophets,  searching  their 
own  prophecies,  found  it  was  not  to  themselves  but  to  us  they 
did  minister  the  things  which  are  now  reported,  to  you,  by  them 
that  have  preached  the  gospel  to  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  sent 
down  from  heaven  ;  and  we  are  to  be  sober  and  hope  to  the  end. 

God  will  head-up  all  things  in  heaven  and  in  earth  in  Christ, 
but,  though  He  was  incarnate  that  it  might  be  so,  incarnation 
did  not  put  Him  in  this  place.  Though  all  power  is  given  Him 
in  heaven  and  in  earth,  He  is  not  in  this  headship  yet.  His  in- 
carnation brought  Him  into  universal  rejection :  man  saw  no 
beauty  in  Him  to  desire  Him  ;  it  was  the  time  of  His  rejection, 
not  of  every  knee  bowing  to  Him,  nor  is  that  time  come  yet. 
Now  He  sits  on  the  right  hand  of  God  expecting.  These  doctors 
make  it  a  sanctifying  of  arts,  sciences,  etc.,  on  earth,  by  pene- 
trating life.  The  Scriptures  make  it  a  bearing  of  the  cross  now, 
separate  from  the  world ;  a  suffering  with  Him,  and  then  a  glorious 
Christ,  under  whom  are  reconciled  all  things  in  heaven  and  in 


earth,  as  reigning  in  glory :  and  that  we  only  are  reconciled  now 
by  His  death,  and  He  expecting  till  His  enemies  are  made  His 
footstool;  and  always  (e/'s  rl  dirivexsg),  now,  and,  till  then,  sitting  at 
the  right  hand  of  God,  while  His  joint-heirs  are  being  gathered. 

Through  death  He  has  glorified  God,  through  death  destroyed 
him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil.  It  is  the 
travail  of  His  soul  that  He  is  Himself  to  see.  Through  death 
He  has  reconciled  us  to  God  ;  redemption  is  through  His  blood. 
It  is  as  glorifying  God  on  the  cross  that  He  is  glorified  by  God  ; 
it  is  by  His  blood  He  has  redeemed  out  of  every  nation  :  hereby 
know  we  love,  in  that  He  laid  down  His  life  for  us  ;  He  came  to 
give  His  life  a  ransom  fd  many.  There  He  was  made  sin  for  us, 
who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  Him  (2  Cor.  v.)  His  incarnation  drew  out  the  enmity :  by 
the  cross  He  reconciled  Jew  and  Gentile  in  one  body,  making 
peace.  What  He  had  seen  and  heard,  that  He  testified,  and  no 
man  received  His  testimony.  When  He  came,  there  was  no  man  ; 
when  He  called,  there  was  none  to  answer.  He  spoke  that  He 
knew,  and  He  testified  that  He  had  seen,  and  they  received  not 
His  witness.  God  came  out  to  man  in  Christ,  and  man  rejected 
Him,  crucified  the  blessed  One  come  in  grace.  But  the  veil  was 
rent  in  His  death,  but  never  till  then,  and  men  can  go  to  God 
in  the  Holiest.  It  was  not  by  life,  precious  as  that  is,  but  by 
death  that  He  redeemed  us  and  reconciled  us  to  God, 

The  whole  system  is  utterly  antichristian  and  antiscriptural : 
moreover  it  is,  as  a  natural  consequence,  a  perverted  and  false 
system  practically.  It  insists  on  the  union  of  supernatural  grace 
and  the  order  of  nature  in  this  world,  and  makes  Christ's  headship 
to  be  in  enjoyable  arts  and  sciences  in  this  world,  instead  of,  as 
He  says,  taking  up  the  cross  and  following  Him — setting  our  affec- 
tion on  things  above,  not  on  things  on  the  earth,  as  beinf^  with 
Him  dead,  and  our  life  hid  with  Him  in  God.  If  Christianity 
be  true,  this  system  is  false.  If  it  were  not  for  the  extreme 
ignorance  of  Scripture,  both  textual  and  critical,  which  they 


display,  I  should  say  the  audacity  of  their  statements  would  be 
marvellous,  but  I  suppose  much  of  it  may  be  attributed  to 

They  say  that  the  communication  of  life  is  not  by  the  word 
but  by  sacraments.  Now  what  saith  the  Scripture  ?  "  Of  His 
own  will  begat  He  us  hy  the  word  of  truth,  that  we  might  be 
a  kind  of  first  fruits  of  His  creatures"  (James  i.  18).  So  Peter  : 
"Being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible, 
hy  the  word  of  God  which  liveth  and  abideth  for  ever."  We 
are  all  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  Now  faith 
Cometh  by  hearing  (a^cojj),  and  hearing  by  the  word  of  God  : 
he  that  heareth  My  word  and  believeth  Him  that  sent  Me  hath 
everlasting  life,  and  shall  not  come  into  condemnation,  but  is 
passed  from  death  unto  life  (John  v.  24).  It  pleased  God  by 
the  foolishness  of  preaching  to  save  them  that  believe  (1  Cor. 
i.  21).  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  imputed  unto  him 
for  righteousness  (TJom.  iv.  3).  For  this  cause  thank  we  God 
without  ceasing,  because,  when  ye  received  the  word  of  God 
which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye  received  it  not  as  the  word  of  men, 
but,  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  word  of  God,  wdiich  worketh  effectu- 
ally in  them  that  believe  (1  Thess.  ii.  13).  Lastly,  when  the 
church  had  become  utterly  corrupt,  as  bad  as  the  heathen,  so 
that  the  times  were  perilous,  the  apostle  refers  to  the  Scriptures 
as  able  to  make  wise  to  salvation  through  faith  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus  (2  Tim.  iii.)  I  shall  refer  to  this  again  when  I 
come  to  speak  a  word  of  the  church.  I  have  quoted  only 
direct  passages  as  to  the  word,  of  faith  in  it,  quickening  and 
vivifying.  There  are  many  other  passages  which  S23eak  indi- 
rectly to  the  same  purpose. 

They  tell  us  baptism  is  what  gives  life  and  incorporates  into 
the  body  of  Christ.  First,  as  to  life,  no  passage  that  I  can  call 
to  mind  states  anything  of  the  sort.  Before  Christ,  and  during 
His  life,  it  clearly  could  not  be.  When  Christ  was  there,  the 
dead  heard  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  they  that  heard 


lived.  I  can  only  take  their  quotations.  They  quote  Peter's 
statement  in  Acts  ii,  but  nothing  is  said  there  of  communicat- 
ing life  at  all.  They  were  to  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  they  would  then  receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  They  were 
baptized  in  Samaria  when  they  believed ;  of  course  they  were, 
but  no  word  of  life  or  life-contact.  The  case  of  the  eunuch  is 
then  quoted,  the  writer  being  ignorant  that  the  verse  is  not 
aenuine  :  but  even  with  it  not  a  word  about  life.  Lydia  and 
the  jailer  were  baptized,  and  their  households  :  but  no  word  of 
receiving  life.  Saul  was  called  to  arise  and  wash  away  his  sins 
for  the  formal  administration  of  forgiveness.  I  do  not  doubt 
this  had  real  force,  though  it  is  not  the  ground  of  it,  but  the 
death  of  Christ  whereby  we  are  justified  by  faith  :  but  not  one 
of  them  alludes  to  communication  of  life  by  bnptism. 

0ur  doctors  claim  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures 
for  themselves  ;  if  any  one  wants  to  see  what  it  is  worth, 
he  may  learn  from  their  comment  on  the  texts  they  have 
quoted  as  to  "the  M'ord."  They  prove  to  us  that  Peter 
does  not  use  "the  word"  of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel, 
from  the  fact  that  he  says  that  it  "liveth  and  abideth  for 
ever,"  which  cannot  be  affirmed  of  preaching  : — is  not  that  pro- 
found ?  They  seem  to  be  ignorant  that  Peter  only  quoted  a 
passage  of  Isaiah  affirming  that  the  gospel  was  a  fulfilment  of 
it.  Did  they  never  read  "  the  word  preached  "  ?  The  word  is  what 
is  preached,  and  so  the  apostle  would  say,  "  It  pleased  God  by 
the  foolishness  of  preaching  to  save  them  that  believe."  Who 
does  not  see  that  it  is  not  the  act  of  preaching  (that  is  the  part 
of  the  preacher),  but  "the  word  preached"?  But  God  has  chosen 
by  the  foolishness  of  preaching  to  save  them  that  believe.  It 
is  wearisome  to  notice  such  absurdity.  Supposing  I  were  to  say, 
"Eating  his  dinner  has  quite  set  him  up,"and  a  Mercersbiirg  theo- 
logian, claiming  to  be  an  interpreter  of  the  word  and  refusing 
"  private  interpretation," should  say, "Eating cannot setaman up ;" 
what  answer  can  one  give  to  such  wisdom  but  to  say,  a-«%£/,  All 


right  ;  I  quite  agree  ?  The  passage  of  James,  ch.  i.  18,  is 
passed  over  as  lightly  as  possible — no  wonder. 

When  Paul  writes  of  Christ  sanctifying  the  church  "by 
the  washing  of  water  by  the  word,"  they  tell  us  it  means  water 
and  the  word,  an  "  unmistakable  testimony  to  the  importance 
and  force  of  holy  baptism."  What !  when  the  Lord  says.  Ye  are 
clean  through  the  word  which  I  have  spoken  unto  you  ;  and  note, 
that  if  so,  the  word  as  spoken  of  us  in  Eph.  v.  never  can  be  applied 
to  the  soul  again  :  for  baptism  cannot  be  repeated.  But  they 
have  to  change  the  passage  to  make  their  use  of  it.  It  is  alleged 
that  it  is  affirming  that  the  "  Holy  Spirit  has  power  to  act  in 
an  extraordinary  way,  dispensing  with  the  ordinary  organs  of 
communication."  So  indeed  the  Lord  affirms  He  does  as  to  this 
very  matter.  The  wind  blows  where  it  lists,  and  ye  hear  the 
sound  thereof,  but  cannot  tell  whence  it  cometh  or  whither  it 
goeth :  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  curious  how 
they  go  in  the  teeth  of  the  word,  doubtless  through  ignorance. 

But  the  word  of  God  is  the  ordinary  means,  the  divinely- 
appointed  means,  of  communicating  life,  as  we  have  seen  :  which 
baptism  is  never  said  to  be.  They  speak  of  magical  operation  : 
it  is  very  irreverent  when  speaking  of  being  born  of  the  Spirit 
who  is  the  immediate  divine  agent  of  imparting  the  divine 
nature.  "That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit ;"  but  what 
more  magical  than  a  little  clean  water,  and  a  few  words  spoken 
by  a  man  who  pretends  to  have  power  to  do  it,  being  the  means 
of  communicating  divine  life !  Far  from  me  to  despise  baptism  ; 
I  believe  it  to  be  the  divinely-appointed  door  of  admission  to 
the  place  where  God  has  placed  His  peculiar  blessings  on  the 
earth.  For  such  a  place  there  was  in  Israel,  and  such  a  place 
there  is  in  Christendom,  awful  as  its  state  may  be :  not  of  entrance 
into  the  body  (of  this  I  will  speak),  but  into  that  habitation  which 
God  has  set  up,  and  where  He  dwells  by  His  Spirit.  But  not 
only  is  baptism  not  life-giving ;  but  it  does  not  mean  it  even  as  a 
sign.     It  is  to  the  death  of  Christ  we  are  baptized,  unto,  not  into  ; 


we  are  not  baptized  into  anything,  but  unto.  They  were  not 
baptized  into  Moses,  and  it  is  the  same  word  :  so,  "  Whereunto 
were  ye  baptized  ?"  Here  the  translators,  though  they  changed 
it  when  they  could,  could  not  misstate  it.  The  answer  was  "  Unto 
John's  baptism."  We  were  baptized  unto  {tig)  Christ's  death. 
How  ?  There  is  no  dead  Christ,  and  you  cannot  be  baptized  inio 
His  death.  We  are  identified  with  Him  {(s'j[icp\)roi)  "in  the  like- 
ness of  His  death." 

The  only  connection  with  life  is  the  passage  in  Colossians 
ii.:  "Wherein  also  we  are  risen  with  Him;"  but  there  it  is 
carefully  added,  "by  faith  in  the  operation  of  God  who  raised 
Him  from  the  dead:"  and  even  there  the  coming  up  out  of 
baptism  is  resurrection  with  Him  :  not  simply  quickening  or 
life-giving,  but  formally  distinct  from  it.  Baptism  is  death,— 
reception  in  the  visible  assembly,  through  death  of  that  winch 
we  were,  as  alive  in  the  first  Adam,  the  death  of  Christ :  as  to 
putting  on  Christ  in  Gal.  iii.,  it  is  only  the  public  profession  of 
Him,  as  contrasted  with  Jew  or  Gentile,  Barbarian,  Scythian, 
bond  or  free,  male  or  female.  The  passage  itself  is  that  wliich 
declares  that  "  we  are  all  children  of  God  (not  by  baptism  but) 
by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus."  Nor  is  it  incorporating  into  Christ. 
There  is  positive  testimony  to  the  contrary  :  "For  by  one  Spiiit 
are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body."  The  Holy  Ghost  come  down 
from  heaven  unites  to  the  glorified  Head  in  heaven.  That 
baptism  of  the  Spirit,  we  are  told,  took  place  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost. "  He  that  is  joined  to  the  Lord  is  one  spirit ; "  others,  when 
they  came  in  amongst  them,  partook  of  the  same  Holy  Ghost. 

But  perhaps  the  most  curious  effect  in  detail  of  this  anti- 
scriptural  system  is  the  absolute  denial  of  all  operation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  by  the  gospel  in  the  world.  "It  (the  clnirch)  meets 
us  exactly  at  the  right  point,  as  setting  forth  the  form  and  njan- 
ner  in  which  Christ,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  carries  forward  His 
work  of  salvation  in  the  world,  li  we  are  to  hold  fast  the  ob- 
jective historical  character  of  what  this  work  was  first,  and  still 


continues  to  be  in  His  own  person  (mark  the  work  is  first  in  the 
person  of  Christ),  it  cannot  be  allowed  to  lose  itself  in  the 
agency  of  the  Spirit  in  a  general  view,  it  must  necessarily  in- 
volve for  us  the  conception  of  a  special  sphere,  this  likewise 
objective  and  historical,  within  which  only  (and  not  in  the  world 
at  large)  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  gospel  is  to  be  regarded  as  work- 
ing. This  is  the  church."  "  To  look  for  it  in  the  world  by 
private  spiritualistic  negotiations  with  God  ...  is  to  look  for 
it  where  it  is  not  to  be  found." 

Now,  I  ask,  in  opposition  to  this  teaching,  were  Paul's  evan- 
gelistic labours  in  the  church  or  in  the  world  ?  That  the  chui-ch 
was  formed  by  them,  where  it  was  not  before,  no  doubt :  and 
doubtless  the  converts  were  all  baptized.  But  where  was  the 
Holy  Ghost  of  the  gospel  working  ?  Was  it  "  not  in  the  world 
at  large,"  as  they  say  ?  It  is  as  absurd  as  it  is  evil.  Let  us  hear 
what  he  says.  Did  he  preach  the  gospel  in  the  church  or  in  the 
world  ?  He  distinguishes  this  double  ministry  (Col.  i.)  But  the 
Lord  Himself  before  Paul,  "Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature.  .  .  .  And  they  went  forth  and 
preached  everywhere,  the  Lord  working  with  them  and  confirm- 
ing the  word  by  signs  following  them.  And  to  Paul :  "The  Gen- 
tiles, to  whom  now  I  send  thee  to  open  their  eyes,"  etc.  So  Paul : 
"Whereof  ye  heard  before  in  the  word  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel 
which  is  come  unto  you,  as  it  is  in  all  the  Avorld,  and  bringing 
forth  fruit,  as  it  doth  in  you,  since  the  day  ye  heard  of  it,  and 
knew  the  grace  of  God  in  truth."  And  what  was  this  gospel  ? 
We  read  in  Eph.  i.  13,  "The  word  of  truth,  the  gospel  of  your 
salvation,  in  whom  also,  after  that  ye  believed,  ye  were  sealed 
with  that  Holy  Spirit  of  promise."  He  does  not  think  it  worth 
while  to  mention  their  baptism,  though,  doubtless,  it  took  place. 

I  said  he  distinguished  his  gospel  ministry  and  his  church 
ministry :  Col.  i.  23,  "  The  gospel  which  ye  have  heard,  and 
which  was  preached  to  every  creature  which  is  under  heaven, 
whereof  I  Paul  am  made  a  minister."  .  .  .  Then  "  His  body's 


sake,  the  church,  whereof  I  am  made  a  minister,  to  fulfil 
(complete)  the  word  of  God."  I  may  add  here,  what  belongs  to 
another  point,  that  the  reconciliation  of  all  things,  which  they 
affirm  to  be  going  on  now,  is  distinguished  from  our  reconcilia- 
tion now  who  form  the  true  church  (see  verses  20  and  21, 
22).  Again  Paul  declares  himself  a  debtor  to  the  Greeks 
and  to  the  Barbarians,  to  the  wise  and  to  the  unwise  ;  not 
ashamed  of  the  gospel,  because  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto 
salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth,  to  the  Jew  first  and 
also  to  the  Greek,  for  therein  is  the  righteousness  of  God 
revealed ;  and  in  the  doctrinal  part  of  the  Eomans,  all  is  abso- 
lutely individual,  only  in  the  hortatory  part  is  there  any  allusion 
to  the  church.  There  it  comes  in  as  a  known  fact.  His  boast 
is  that  he  preached  where  Christ  had  not  been  heard  of  (2  Cor. 
X. ;  ^om.  i.  5).  He  would  not  have  anything  to  do  with  the 
church  in  this  service  (Gal.  i.  16,  17).  It  was  where  Christ  was 
not  named ;  he  went  directly  from  Christ,  "  not  of  man  nor  by 
man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ  and  God  the  Father."  (Comp.  Eom. 
XV.  15-21.)  What  the  apostle  boasts  of  as  his  glory,  these  theo- 
logians denounce.  But  more,  the  commission  in  Matt,  xxviii. 
was  never  carried  out ;  Paul's  took  its  place  (Gal.  ii.  6-9),  and  Paul 
puts  his  mission  in  contrast  on  these  points  with  theirs.  They 
may  have  gone  abroad,  as  Mark  xvi. ;  but  this  is  the  only  allusion 
to  it  in  Scripture  :  the  tradition  as  to  it  being  a  very  late  one. 

But;  besides,  Paid  declares  he  was  not  sent  to  baptize  at 
all,  but  to  preach  the  gospel.  I  know  our  theologians,  v>'ith  the 
Baptists,  say  this  was  for  fear  of  its  being  thought  he  baptized 
in  his  own  name.  But  this  is  a  come-off.  He  positively  declares 
Christ  did  not  send  him  to  baptize  but  to  preach  the  gospel :  the 
cross,  the  death  of  Christ — foolishness,  no  doubt,  to  a  ritualist, 
but  to  us  who  are  saved  the  power  of  God.  But  is  it  not  a 
strange  thing  if  life-contact  is  only  in  baptism,  he  should  tell 
us  he  was  not  sent  to  do  the  only  thing  which  gives  life,  and  to 
do  that  which  "  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  gospel"  does  not  do  ? 



Pity  he  was  not  sent  to  IMercersLurg.  And  somehow  he  "  Laid 
the  foundation  "  in  his  ministry.  As  regards  the  full  revelation 
of  the  mystery  of  the  church,  a  dispensation  was  committed  to 
him.  The  whole  testimony  of  Paul,  both  as  to  the  gospel  and 
as  to  the  church,  is  set  aside  by  these  ritualists ;  that  is,  of  him 
to  whom  the  mission  to  the  Gentiles  was  specially  committed 
by  Christ  himself,  and  relinquished  by  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem. 
P>ut  let  us  consider  this  doctrine  of  the  church  scripturally 
and  historically  too  :  for  these  doctors  avoid  history  to  replace  it 
by  dreams  of  their  own  fancy.  We  have  the  church  or  assembly 
of  God  under  three  aspects  in  Scripture,  primarily  two,  and  then 
one  of  the  two  as  the  effect  of  divine  workmanship,  and  as  the 
effect  of  the  work  as  entrusted  to  the  responsibility  of  man: 
"The  body,"  if  we  speak  of  that  which  is  united  to  Christ,  the  glori- 
fied Head  in  heaven  (Eph.  i.  and  v.  Comp.  1  Cor.  xii.),  set  up 
on  earth,  but  to  be  complete  and  perfected  in  heaven,  is  not 
formed  by  baptism.  Simon  Magus,  for  instance,  was  baptized, 
but  had  neither  part  nor  lot  in  the  matter  ;  the  120  at  Jerusalem 
had  formed  the  nucleus  of  the  church,  but  M'ere  never  baptized 
at  all.  There  is  no  trace  of  it,  nor  anybody  to  do  it :  yet  they 
were  the  church  itself  at  its  starting.  It  is,  we  are  expressly 
told,  "  by  one  Spirit  we  are  baptized  into  one  body."  This  baptism, 
we  know  from  Acts  i.,  was  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  The  truth 
concerning  this  one  body  was  more  fully  developed  in  Paul's 
ministry.  But  Christ  exalted  on  high  was  the  head,  those  who- 
had  the  Holy  Ghost  the  members.  He  that  is  joined  to  the 
Lord  is  one  spirit.  It  is  never  connected  with  water-baptism,  nor 
are  there  rotten  members  of  Christ's  body.  An  unbeliever 
not  born  of  God  is  not  a  member  of  Christ's  body.  He  is  "  v^■ith- 
out  Christ ;"  nay,  more,  "  If  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
he  is  none  of  His."  "  Ye  are  not  in  the  flesh  but  in  the  Spirit, 
if  so  be  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you."  "  There  is  no  condem- 
nation to  them  who  are  in  .  Christ  Jesus."  "  The  whole  body 
edifies  itself  in  love  ; "  they  are  "  members  one  of  another."    The 


"  Head  is  Christ,  from  whom  the  whole  body  fitly  joined  together 
and  compacted  by  that  which  every  joint  supplieth,  maketh  in- 
crease of  the  body  to  the  edifying  of  itself  in  love."  So  "  there 
is  one  Spirit  and  one  body,  even  as  we  are  called  in  one  hope  of 
our  calling  ;"  and  then  "one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism  ;"  and 
then  "  one  God  and  Fatlier  of  all :"  the  circle  each  time  widening 
with  the  Spirit :  the  Lord  :  and  God  the  Father.  The  same 
distinction  is  made  in  1  Cor.  l  2. 

This  is  one  aspect  of  the  assembly  of  God.  There  is  another — 
it  is  the  "  habitation  of  God,"__and  that  now  "  by  the  Spirit."  But 
this  is  viewed  in  a  double  way  in  the  word  :  Christ  builds  ;  and 
man  builds.  "  On  this  rock  /will  build  My  church,  and  the  gates 
of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."  But  here  Christ  is  the 
builder,  and  the  building  unfinished,  nor  can  Satan  hinder  its 
bein^  built.  He  can  catch  the  sheep  and  scatter  them,  but  not 
pluck  (catch)  them  out  of  Christ's  hand.  So  Peter  :  the  living 
stones  come  and  are  built  upon  the  living  Stone,  a  spiritual 
house  ;  no  human  agency  is  spoken  of  as  bringing  them.  So  Paul : 
"  fitly  joined  and  compacted  it  groweth  to  a  holy  temple  in  the 
Lord."  This  house  is  not  yet  finished,  it  is  growing,  grace  is 
carrying  it  on  ;  it  is  not  that  life  is  given  by  energy  in  a  sacra- 
ment: but  living  stones  come.  But  when  I  come  to  1  Cor.  iii.  it 
is  another  matter.  Here  man's  responsibility  comes  in  and 
man's  agency.  As  a  wise  master-builder,  Paul  laid  the  found- 
ation ;  biit  every  one  was  to  take  heed  how  he  builded  thereon. 
If  he  builded  with  gold,  silver,  or  precious  stones,  he  would  receive 
a  reward  ;  if  with  wood  and  hay  and  stubble,  his  work  would 
be  burnt  up  :  in  a  word,  the  work  depended  on  the  responsibility 
of  man.  Looked  at  as  to  the  result  on  earth,  God's  temple 
might  be  badly  built :  and  man,  as  he  has  ever  done  from  Adam, 
has  wholly  failed.  This  I  shall  show.  The  papacy,  and  then 
ritualists,  drinking  in  their  sweetened  poison  through  their 
utterly  false  views  as  to  baptism  (false  in  every  respect),  have 
confounded  Christ's  work  in  building,  yet  unfinished,  with  their 


own  wood  and  hay  and  stubble  ;  or  worse,  they  tell  us  that,  by 
an  organic  system  of  clergy  and  baptism,  it  is  to  restore  the  race 
and  bring  in  consecration  of  everything  to  God,  uniting  the 
supernatural  with  the  natural  as  it  did  in  Christ,  or  grace  and 
nature  till  it  culminates  in  glory !  Now  let  us  see  what  God 
tells  us.  First  looked  at  as  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  When  Christ 
had  sowed  the  good  seed,  the  enemy  came  and  sowed  tares,  and 
the  evil  done  had  to  remain  till  the  harvest ;  the  wheat  of 
Christ's  sowing  was  not  spoiled,  but  the  crop  was,  here.  Next 
take  Jude  :  False  brethren  crept  in  nnawares,  baptized  with  the 
organic  system  we  must  suppose,  but  false  brethren  always,  no 
life-contact  with  Christ,  but  spots  in  their  feasts  of  charity,  and 
o^  these  Enoch  prophesied.  The  Lord  cometh  with  ten  thousand  of 
His  saints  to  execute  judgment.  The  evil  went  on  to  the  end. 
In  John  we  have  the  other  character  of  evil.  They  had  gone 
out,  apostatised,  were  not  of  them  though  they  had  been  among 
them.  The  last  times  were  already  come  marked  by  these 
antichrists.  Paul  more  fully :  The  mystery  of  iniquity  did  already 
work  ;  only  there  was  what  hindered  it,  and  when  this  M'as  gone, 
tlie  man  of  sin  would  be  revealed,  whom  the  Lord  will  destroy 
by  the  brightness  of  His  coming.  He  could  say  already,  All 
seek  their  own,  not  the  things  of  Jesus  Christ. 

In  2d  Timothy  we  have  the  Holy  Ghost's  directions  when  the 
church  had  fallen  into  this  evil  estate.  God's  sure  foundation 
remained,  the  Lord  knew  them  that  they  were  His  :  and  who- 
ever named  the  name  of  the  Lord  was  to  depart  from  iniquity. 
In  a  great  house  (for  such  would  the  church  become)  there 
are  vessels  of  gold,  silver,  and  earth,  some  to  honour  and  some 
to  dishonour;  if  a  man  purged  himself  from  these  last,  he  would 
be  a  vessel  to  honour  and  fit  for  the  Master's  use.  Spiritual  judg- 
ment must  discern  what  these  teachers  were  worth  in  the  house, 
for  it  Avould  contain  all  sorts.  But  further,  so  far  from  trusting 
the  church,  in  the  last  days  perilous  times  would  come,  and  a 
description  is  given  of  Christendom,  the  same  (save  two  or  three 


words)  as  that  of  the  heathen  in  Rom.  i.,  not  of  the  world  without. 
There  would  be  a  form  of  piety  denying  its  force ;  believers  were 
to  turn  away  from  such.  What  was  their  resource?  The 
Scriptures  expressly :  what  Paul  taught,  and  the  Scriptures  given 
by  inspiration  of  God,  that,  when  the  church  was  gone  to  ruin, 
the  word  of  God  remained  sure  :  and  this  was  to  guide. 

So  John :  If  that  which  ye  have  heard  from  the  hcginning 
abide  in  you,  ye  shall  continue  in  the  Father  and  in  the  Son. 
No  developed  and  formed  theology  :  but  that  which  was  from  the 
beginning.  He  wrote  this  concerning  those  that  seduced 
them.  But  further :  In  the  seven  churches,  he  that  hath  an  car 
is  called  upon  to  listen  to  what  the  Spirit  said  to  the  churches. 
Christ  was  judging  them.  They  therefore  could  be  no  authority. 
He  that  had  an  ear  for  what  Christ  said  was  to  listen  to  His 
judgment  of  them.  Thus,  so  far  from  their  word  being  an 
authority  or  rule,  we  are  called  on  to  listen  to  the  word  which 
judges  their  state  :  and  whence  can  we  date  the  ruin  ?  Paul 
declares  that  after  his  decease  wolves  from  without  and  perverse 
persons  from  within  would  arise  ;  John  that  they  were  already 
in  the  last  time.  It  was  merely,  alas  !  what  had  ever  happened 
under  man  ;  with  Noah,  with  Israel  under  the  law,  with  the 
priesthood,  with  the  Jewish  royalty,  with  the  Gentile  ;  thus, 
what  God  had  set  up  good,  the  first  thing  man  did  was  to  spoil 
and  ruin  it.  But  we  have  the  additional  testimony  from  I'uul 
that  evil  men  and  seducers  would  wax  worse  and  wor^e, 
deceiving  and  being  deceived  ;  the  Scriptures,  and  what  was 
taught  by  inspiration  from  the  beginning  being  the  only  resource 
of  "  the  man  of  God,"  and  able  to  make  him  wise  unto  salvation. 
John  tells  us  that  the  last  time  was  already  come :  so  Peter 
that  the  time  was  come  that  judgment  should  begin  at  the  house 
of  God.  And  mark  this :  when  Pomanists  or  ritualists  tell  us  to 
listen  to  the  church,  they  merely  mean  themselves,  the  clergy  ; 
tliey  interpret  the  Scriptures,  doling  out  as  much  as  they  think 
proper  to  give  us,  and  cooked  up  as  they  please. 


Paul,  tliey  would  have  us  believe,  did  not  know  how  to 
address  the  church  ;  what  was  from  the  beginning  is  not  Avhat 
I  am  to  hold  fast !  Let  us  see  what  ground  there  is  for  this 
apostate  doctrine  ;  this  doctrine  of  Satan, — for  such  it  is  :  he 
knows  the  power  of  the  inspired  word  of  God.  To  whom  did 
the  blessed  Lord  speak  ?  To  the  multitude.  To  whom  did  the 
apostles  speak  and  write  ?  First  to  the  world  ;  but  then  in  the 
Epistles — all  save  three  short  ones — to  the  assemblies,  the  mass 
of  believers.  If  you  choose  to  call  them  clergy,  the  clergy  wrote 
to  the  mass  of  common  believers.  The  church  or  mass,  really 
never  teaches.  Those  gifted,  as  sent,  teach  the  assembly,  but 
the  Scriptures  generally  are  addressed,  always  addressed,  to  the 
body  of  believers  :  God's  word  is  addressed  to  them  without  any 
interpreters.  They  are  God's  own  word  to  them,  by  which  I 
should  be  called  upon,  if  needed,  to  judge  even  apostles,  with 
a  curse  pronounced  upon  them  if  they  taught  anything  else. 

The  church  never  teaches.  The  teachers  are  to  be  judged  by 
the  word  of  God.  Sad  it  is  if  that  be  needed,  for  gifts  of  teach- 
ing there  are  ;  but,  if  needed  to  be  done,  God  has  sent  His 
word  to  the  saints  at  large.  He  who  comes  between  and  inter- 
cepts the  message  meddles  with  God's  rights,  not  merely  with 
mine.  If  I  own  this  title  in  the  clergy,  I  am  withdrawing  my- 
self from  God's  own  direct  title  over  me  as  His  servant ;  but 
I  cannot  from  my  responsibility,  for  He  lias  addressed  His  word 
directly  to  me.  Man  cannot  withdraw  himself  from  the  conse- 
quences of  his  own  moral  state  in  reading  it ;  that  is  true,  nor  is 
he  meant  to  do  so.  If  he  comes  presumptuously,  he  will  reap 
the  fruits  of  his  presumption.  If  he  comes  meekly,  "  as  new 
born  babes  desire  the  sincere  milk  of  the  word,"  he  will  reap 
the  fruits  of  God's  grace.  Those  teachers  who  write  "  Bible- 
worshippers,"  and  deny  what  they  call  verbal  inspiration,  may 
learn,  at  any  rate  the  simple  may,  what  the  apostle  teaches  : 
"  We"  (the  apostle  himself  and  the  inspired  teachers)  "  have 
received,  not  the  spirit  of  the  world,  but  the  Spirit  which  is  of 


God,  that  we  miglit  know  the  things  which  are  freely  given  to 
us  of  God."  There  is  revelation.  "  Which  things  also  we  speak, 
not  in  the  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  teacheth."  There  is  verbal  inspiration.  "  The 
natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  for 
they  are  foolishness  unto  him,  because  they  are  spiritually  dis- 
cerned." There  is  the  intelligence  of  the  things  taught  in  the 
word,  as  it  is  written  ;  and  it  is  the  distinctive  character  of  the 
time  of  grace  :  "  They  shall  be  all  taught  of  God." 

And,  now,  let  us  see  how  far  the  church  is  to  be  trusted, — the 
historical  development.  I  affirm  that  the  history  of  the  baptized 
mass  is  the  history  of  the  greatest  wickedness — crimes  natural, 
ecclesiastical,  and  unnatural — that  ever  disgraced  human  nature, 
worse  and  more  universal  than  among  the  heathen,  bad  as 
tliey  were.  Did  our  theologians  ever  read  the  letter  of  Nicolas 
Clemangis,  rector  of  the  University  of  Paris  at  the  time  of  the 
great  schism,  the  greatest  man  of  his  age,  and  his  description  of  the 
state  of  morals  ?  In  the  middle  ages,  so  great  was  the  violence 
and  disorder- — one  pope  annulling  as  invalid  all  the  ordinations 
of  another  whom  he  had  driven  out — that  a  book  had  to  be 
Avritten  to  apprise  the  people  there  were  still  sacraments, — 
unnatural  crimes  universal,  especially  among  the  clergy  ;  and 
such  a  state  of  things  in  the  papacy,  that  the  great  Eoman 
Catholic  historian,  cardinal  and  Jesuit,  Baronius,  declares  that 
for  a  century  he  cannot  own  the  popes  for  legitimate,  but  only 
puts  their  names  in  for  dates,  set  up  as  they  were  by  the  mis- 
tresses of  the  marquis  of  Tuscany,  or  by  their  mothers,  mis- 
tresses of  deceased  popes.  The  pope  got  hold  of  a  book  written 
by  an  honest  man,  denouncing  the  state  of  things,  and  sup- 
pressed it,  saying  that  it  would  be  too  scandalous,  and  that  he 
would  punish  the  most  flagrant  cases.  And  the  gloss  of  the 
canon  law  on  a  decretal,  speaking  of  degrading  for  licentiousness, 
declares  that  it  cannot  be  for  simple  fornication,  for  then  it 
would  be  universal.     There  is  no  such  system  of  wickedness  as 


the  organic  system  preached  up  by  ritualists.  I  challenge  them, 
with  their  historical  Christianity,  to  state  honestly  what  history 
states  ;  nor,  though  more  decent  outwardly  since  the  Reforma- 
tion, is  it  really  very  much  better  now.  This  was  the  baptized 
organism  that  contained — (can  I  say  the  words?) — Christ's  life  ! 

Let  us  turn  to  an  earlier  date  :  Did  our  theologians  ever  read 
Cyprian  dc  Pudentia,  or  Chrysostom's  two  treatises  on  the  same 
subject  ?  Here  we  go  back  to,  say,  240  after  Christ.  But  a  cen- 
tury before  :  what  do  we  find — that  is,  forty  or  fifty  years  after 
the  death  of  the  apostle  John?  Infamy  under  the  form  of 
asceticism.  Do  our  theologians,  for  I  do  not  mvich  trust  their 
acquaintance  with  history,  know  what  subintroductae,  or 
'ira.oiiaaxToi,  in  full  blow  at  that  time  were  ?  So  common  that 
it  had  to  be  taken  up  by  councils.  I  do  not  defile  my 
pages  with  what  was  read  in  the  clmirches  then  as  holy  practice. 

And  as  to  doctrine,  I  will  give  a  specimen  from  one  called 
an  apostolic  father,  but  who  was  really  the  brother  of  Pope 
Pius  the  First  :  "  A  man  had  a  vineyard  and  set  his  ser- 
vant to  stake  up  the  vines.  The  servant  did  so,  but  did 
more  than  he  had  been  set  to  do — cleared  the  garden  of  weeds. 
The  Lord  of  the  vineyard  consulted  with  his  son  and  his 
friends  what  he  should  do  with  his  faithful  servant,  and  they 
agreed  he  should  be  made  heir  with  the  son.  The  servant  was 
Christ,  who  was  set  to  establish  the  clergy,  but  did  a  great  deal 
more  than  God  had  set  him  to  do — namely,  cleared  away  our 
sins.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  the  Son,  the  angels  the  friends."  Is 
not  that  the  church  maintaining  and  forming  sound  doctrine  ? 

But  our  theologians  will  tell  us,  it  is  hunting  up  evil  and  find- 
ing some  obscure  individual,  and  the  church  cannot  be  answer- 
able. It  was  read  in  the  churches,  though  more  in  the  east  than 
in  the  west,  is  quoted  by  Irena3us  as  Scripture,  and  treated  by 
Origen  as  questionable,  if  it  was  not  inspired.  They  tell  us,  as 
proof  of  the  value  of  the  church  forming  doctrine,  that  it  was 
only  after  long  struggle  that  the  formal  truth  as  to  Christ's 


person  was  established.  His  divinity  at  the  council  of  Nicaea, 
But  what  does  this  mean  ?  They  do  not  mean  to  deny  that  the 
truth  as  to  Christ's  person  is  in  Scripture.  It  means,  therefore, 
that  the  church  had  lost  the  truth  of  Christ's  person.  And  so 
it  was.  Scarcely  one  of  the  known  teachers  was  sound  on  the 
deity  of  the  Lord ;  and  those  who  were,  as  Irenseus,  were  unsound 
on  other  things.  And  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  who  set  up  the  title  of 
Mother  of  God,  was  a  decided  Eutychian,  so  called  afterwards  in 
doctrine,  justified  himself  by  the  authority  of  Athanasius — it 
seems  to  me,  he  was  warranted  in  so  doing.  He  was  as  turbulent 
a  ruffian  as  ever  lived,  heading  the  mob  at  Alexandria  to 
plunder  and  ruin,  and  drive  out  the  Jews  when  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria,  and  spending  all  the  possessions  of  the  church  of 
Alexandria,  which  were  immense,  to  bribe  the  courtiers  and 
empress-sister  of  the  emperor  to  banish  and  persecute  Nesto- 
rius,  in  which  he  succeeded.  He  canonised  the  man  who  sought 
to  murder  the  governor  at  Alexandria  who  put  down  his  rioting. 
The  Ecumenical  Council  at  Ephesus  was  as  great  a  scene  of 
iniquity  and  open  violence  as  occurs  in  history,  so  that  the 
emperor  sent  troops  and  put  the  leaders  in  prison,  from  which 
Cyril  escaped,  and  they  bribed  the  court,  Nestorius'  patron 
having  died.  In  the  previous  Council  of  Ephesus,  the  Concio 
Latronum,  convened  by  the  emperor,  attended  by  the  pope's 
legates,  with  every  element  of  a  general  council,  the  bishops 
beat  old  Flavianus,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  in  such  a  way 
that  he  died  of  it.     It  was  quashed  afterwards  through  shame. 

This  was  the  primitive  church ;  its  organic  progress  to 
sanctify  the  world !  They  could  not  cure  the  baptized  heathen 
(in  life-contact,  we  are  to  believe,  with  Christ)  by  their  baptism 
of  getting  drunk  at  the  festivals  (IMemories,  so  called,  at  shrines 
of  their  relics)  of  the  demigods  :  so  the  church  allowed  it,  putting 
saints  in  the  place  of  demigods,  that  at  least  they  might  get 
drunk  in  honour  of  saints  instead  of  demons  !  The  church,  that 
is,  the  clergy,  the  interpreters  of  the  Scriptures,  did  this.   You  will 


say,  AVhat  proof  is  there  of  it  ?  Augustine  states  it,  who  tried 
to  put  it  down.  The  same  state  of  things  is  mentioned  in  Paul- 
inus  of  Kola  ;  and  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  left  only  seventeen 
heathen  in  his  diocese  by  means  of  it :  and  it  was  part  of  the 
directions  of  Pope  Gregory  the  First  to  another  Augustine,  sent 
to  convert  the  Saxons.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  Sicily,  which 
had  never  been  converted  from  heathenism,  went  over,  I  may 
say  in  a  body,  to  Christianity  ;  and  gave  up  their  splendid 
temples  for  churches  as  soon  as  Mary  was  declared  by  the 
Fourth  Council  to  be  "  the  mother  of  God."  God  has  preserved 
His  testimony  and  truth  in  spite  of  the  church,  thus  viewed  :  of 
what  ritualists  call  the  church.  He  cannot  fail.  These  things 
were  not  exceptional,  but  the  general  state.  But  Avhat  were  saints 
to  do  if  they  listened  to  the  clergy  as  interpreters,  when  they 
turned  Arian  with  the  emperors — when,  as  Jerome  says,  the 
world  awoke  and  found  itself  Arian  ?  When  even  Hosius  and 
the  Pope  Liberius  gave  way,  were  they  to  follow  the  clergy  or  the 
Scriptures  ?  The  Luciferians,  a  sect  named  by  Jerome,  had  their 
name  from  one  Lucifer,  who  would  not  go  with  the  world  when 
all  the  clergy  turned  Arians.  Athanasius  is  justly  held  in 
honour  as  to  this  too  ;  but  what  was  the  course  of  the  whole  body 
of  the  clergy  ?  Have  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  Pome  organi- 
cally maintained  the  truth  in  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  ]Mary,  or 
in  transubstantiation  and  the  offering  of  the  mass  ?  Let  us  have 
it  out  plainly.  Ought  people  under  their  jurisdiction  to  follow 
their  interpretation,  and  acknowledge  their  authority?  They 
are  just  as  much  clergy  as  Oxford  or  Mercersburg.  They  tell 
tis  that  God  has  divided  His  attribute  of  Almightiness  between 
Jesus  and  ]\Iary ; — almighty  justice  to  Jesus,  and  almighty 
mercy  to  ]\Iary.  Are  their  parishioners  to  believe  this  ?  and,  as 
the  present  pope  has  declared,  that  we  must  go  to  the  heart  of 
Jesus  through  the  heart  of  Mary  ?  Dr.  Pacy  has  exposed  this. 
Very  likely  Mercersburg  does  not  believe  these  horrid  doc- 
trines.    But  why  am  I  to  trust  them  more  than  their  adver- 


saries  ;  or  why  acknowledge  their  competency  to  interpret  more 
than  the  pope's  ?  Am  I  to  believe  in  purgatory  in  Savoy,  Ijecause 
the  clergy  teach  it;  and  cross  tlie  lake  of  Geneva,  and  hold  that  it. 
is  utterly  false  in  the  Canton  de  Vaud,  because  the  clergy  teach 
so  there?  Am  I  to  hold  transubstantiation  as  vital  truth  in 
France ;  and  declare  it  idle  fables  and  blasphemous  deceits  in 
England  ?  Am  I  to  hold  that  Christ  is  God  in  one  parish  in 
France,  and  deny  it  if  I  go  into  the  next?  for  so  I  must  if  I 
listen  to  the  clergy  and  their  interpretation.  Were  not — though, 
thank  God,  there  is  a  reaction — the  clergy  in  France,  Germany^ 
Holland,  as  a  body  infidel,  and  still  mostly  are,  or  indifferent  ? 
It  is  all  well  to  talk  of  the  church,  and  hearing  the  church  :  but 
what  church  am  I  to  hear  ?  The  body  of  the  Eeformed  Church 
was,  and  in  a  very  large  and  major  part  is  (particularly  the  clergy), 
infidel.     Is  this  the  doctrine  I  am  to  receive  ? 

In  Geneva  the  State  has  abolished  ordination  entirely.  In 
Neuchatel  it  has  left  every  man  to  preach  what  he  likes :  and 
half  the  national  church  have  left  and  set  up  for  themselves.  In 
all  the  principal  cantons  infidelity  reigns  among  the  clergy  ; 
the  godly  laity  are  getting  tired  of  them  and  their  nothing- 
arianism.  They  have  said  to  me  in  France,  "  But  if  we  are 
Christians  we  must  have  some  kind  of  Christ;"  and  tlien  not  so 
veiy  strict  either.  In  Paris  Christianity  was  carried  against 
avowed  infidelity  by  twelve  votes  of  more  than  2600  voters  in 
the  Eeformed  Church.  I  do  not  doubt  that  the  Lord  is  graciously 
acting,  but  it  is  not  generally  by  the  clergy  but  in  spite  of  them. 

It  is  vain  to  say  things  are  becoming  better.  "What  became 
of  souls  if  they  listened  or  listen  to  the  clergy  when  they  are 
infidels  or  rationalists  ?  When  the  clergy  turned  Arians  witli 
the  emperors,  were  they  or  the  word  of  God  to  be  listened  to  ? 
If  Mercersburg  or  others  teach  false  doctrine  as  to  the  person  of 
Christ  and  the  sacraments,  am  I  to  be  saved  by  listening  to  them  ? 
Can  they  answer  for  my  soul  "  in  that  day"  ?  They  insist  on  the 
peccability  of  Christ :  we  are  therefore  authorised  in  putting  the 


case,  (the  Lord  avert  the  blasphemy  from  every  heart,  that  he 
did  sin !)  putting  it  as  a  supposition,  for  they  affirm  it  to  have 
been  possible  ;  "  God  was  united  for  ever  to  sinful  man."  Is  it 
not  enough  to  revolt  and  repel  with  horror  every  true  soul?  Say 
it,  not  to  doctors,  for  God  hides  things  from  wise  and  prudent, 
but  to  a  poor  uninstructed  saint :  he  will  make  short  work  with 
clergy  interpretation.  "What  simple  majesty  is  in  the  statement ! 
"The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Highest  shall  overshadow  thee ;  therefore  that  holy  thing 
that  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God."  For 
these  theologians,  who  pry  into  divine  secrets  and  pretend  to 
know  the  Son,  whom  none  knows,  but  the  Father,  "  the  divine  " 
(they  are  sometimes  afraid  to  say  what),  "  having  taken  sinful 
nature  up,  was  gradually  victorious  over  it,  purifying  it."  It  was 
the  power  of  the  Highest  overshadowing  the  Virgin  Mary  for 
Scripture  :  for  the  interpreters,  it  was  "  united  in  the  womb  to 
sin  in  the  foetus,  and  purifying  the  nature,"  (Can  more  offensive 
folly,  of  which  there  is  not  a  word  in  Scripture,  be  conceived  ?  ^ 
I  am  ashamed  to  speak  of  it,  but  it  must  be  spoken  to  put  these 
pretentious  men  in  the  true  light)  :  and  that,  for  them,  is 
"  redemption  "  ! 

But  we  have  the  faith  of  the  church  in  the  creeds :  The  Apostles' 
Creed,  for  instance,  universally  recommended  in  all  ages  by  the 
church.  ISTow  this  is  a  deception  ;  they  know  its  history  well, 
they  will  not  venture  to  speak  of  the  ancient  fable,  for  fables  were 
plentiful  in  those  days  (there  was  one  Lucius  with  uncertain  name, 
a  coiner  of  false  documents),  that  each  apostle  came  forward  to 
give  one  article.  The  Apostles'  Creed  is  not,  as  we  have  it,  as 
ancient  as  the  Nicene  Creed.  Some  analogous  formulary  was 
gradually  established  in  each  diocese  ;  the  Eoman  creed  was 
pretty  much  the  same  as  what  w^e  have,  save  some  important 
articles.     But  what  we  have,  save  these,  is  first  given  by  Ruffinus 

1  Elsewhere  it  is  :  "  The  victory  of  sinlessness  over  remaining  depravity  by 
the  process  of  the  divine-human  life  in  the  womb." 


(published  in  Fell's  Cyprian)  in  the  fourth  or  fifth  century  ;  but 
there  was  no  descent  to  hell  in  it,  and,  what  is  more  important, 
no  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  Son.  This  was  added, 
it  is  said,  from  Spain,  when  the  Visigoths  gave  up  Arianism,  and 
thence  passed  into  Gaul ;  but  this  was  quite  late,  and  Leo  put 
up  the  creed  in  silver  tablets  at  Rome  that  nothing  might  be 
added,  the  Council  of  Ephesus  having  forbidden  any  additions. 
This  article,  added  none  knows  how,  is  rejected  by  the  whole 
Greek  Church,  and  is  the  avowed  cause  of  division.  I  say 
avowed,  for  it  is  pretty  clear  it  was  ambition  and  rivalry,  I  am 
not  insisting  on  rejecting  nor  on  receiving  it ;  but  what  if  tnie 
must  be  of  first-rate  importance  in  the  creed  has  divided  the 
professing  church,  instead  of  having  a  common  faith  by  it. 

But  these  professors,  as  one  of  them  says,  leave  the  poor 
Greek  Church  out  in  the  cold.  In  the  recent  conferences  of  the 
archbishop  of  Syra  with  the  English  prelates,  this  article  could 
not  be  got  over,  and,  then.  Dr.  Pusey,  it  is  said,  declared  they  were 
farther  off  than  ever  from  union.  A  priest  or  patriarch  in  Turkey 
did  let  in  an  English  clergyman  to  communion,  but  was  severely 
taken  to  task  by  the  ecclesiastical  authority  for  it.  I  am  not 
sure,  but  I  rather  think,  he  M'as  excommunicated. 

But  let  us  take  the  Apostles'  Creed  as  it  stands.  There  is  not 
a  trace  in  it  that  Christ  is  God ;  an  Arian,  nay,  a  Unitarian,  could 
sign  it  as  well  as,  nay,  better  than,  one  who  held  the  fundamental 
truth  of  the  trinity  of  persons  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead.  Is 
not  this  rather  serious  if  it  is  to  be  the  norm  of  faith  ?  The 
Father  is  God  and  Almighty,  and  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost 
spoken  of  apart  with  no  hint  of  divinity  !  Creation  is  attril)uted 
to  the  Father^  exclusively  ;  all  that  is  said  of  Jesus  Christ  is 
referable  to  what  He  was  when  become  man. 

Now  Scripture  leaves  no  shadow  of  doubt  on  such  subjects. 

^  It  is  singular  enough  that,  while  creation  is,  of  course,  ascribed  to  God  in  the 
unity  of  His  being,  when  the  persons  are  distinguished,  it  is  never  ascribed  to  the 
Father  but  to  the  Son  and  Spirit. 


"  The  Word  was  with  God,  and  was  God."  He  became  man  : 
"  The  Word  was  made  flesh."  He  never  became  (but  in  the 
beginning  '^(jcii)  God,  When  all  tliat  has  a  beginning  began,  He 
was  ;  and  was  a  distinct  person.  As  far  as  the  creed  was  the 
expression  of  early  faith  (for  it  was  the  creed  of  Aquilina,  and 
w^e  may  practically  say,  of  Eome),  tlie  church  had  so  lost  the 
faith — at  least  its  teachers  the  clergy — that  it  required  the 
council  at  Nice,  with  the  emperor  presiding  and  keeping  order 
among  the  disputing  bishops,  to  get  it  on  the  ground  of  the 
divinity  of  the  Lord  ;  and  larger  assemblies  unsettled  it  again, 
and  it  took  council  upon  council  to  set  things  straight.  Nor, 
mark,  are  the  great  branches  of  the  baptized  organism  agreed 
which  councils  are  general,  which  not.  Augustine  declares 
them  to  be  no  final  rule  ;  one  correcting  the  other  by  clearer 

I  know  not  that  I  have  more  to  add.  Many  errors,  and 
important  ones,  could  be  noticed,  and  ignorance  of  Scripture, 
flowing  from  following  men's  thoughts  and  system.  Thus,  we 
are  told,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  after  He  came  is  not  called  the 
Spirit  of  the  Father  or  of  the  Son.  He  is  both  :  and  as  far  as  I 
can  trust  my  recollection,  only  after  His  coming.  But  I  notice 
this  only  to  show  the  rashness  of  assertion.  Their  doctrine  is 
false  as  to  justification  by  faith  ;  it  is  for  them  inherent  or 
infused,  though  professedly  not  exactly  Romish  doctrine. 

But  my  only  object  was  the  ritualism,  the  person  of  the  Lord, 
and  the  church,  running  into  this  main  point  :  Is  redemption  by 
incarnation,  or  by  the  death  of  Christ  ?  They  say,  formally,  by 
incarnation  (the  Scriptures,  as  formall}'-,  by  the  blood  of  Christ) ; 
and  all  their  system  hangs  on  this.  As  to  the  clergy,  it  is 
Qiiot  homines,  tot  scntcntiac,  unless  we  go  to  Rome,  who  treat  their 
doctors  as  outside  the  church  altogether.  Take  even  their 
friends,  the  English  Puseyites  (from  whom  our  Mercersburg 
doctors  declare  they  borrow  their  sacraments  and  clerical  system, 
not  from  Germany, — alas !  they  have  no  bishops,  and,  if  their 


friends  are  to  be  believed,  no  organic  succession  at  all,  no 
divine  channels  of  grace  whatever  :  happily  in  Piomanisra  and 
Anglicanism  the  clergy  are  not  necessary  to  baptism, — a  mid- 
wife can  do  it,  so  they  may  be  considered  to  have  life-contact 
after  all !)  their  Christianity  is  just  saved !  As  to  an  inter- 
preting clergy,  they  are  absolutely  without  any.  A  goodly 
system  this  to  secure  the  truth  for  the  simple  !  Which  am  I 
to  believe  ?  Happily  I  am  content  with  what  Jolm,  and  Paul, 
and  Peter,  and  the  blessed  Lord  Himself,  tauglit  "from  the 

"Let  that  theeefore  abide  in  you,  which  ye  have  heard 

SEDUCE   YOU.       But    the    anointing    AVHICH  YE    HAVE    RECEIVED 

OF  Him  abideth  in  you,  and  ye  need  not  that  any  man 


His  COMING."    (1  John  ii.  24-28.) 


Things,  truths,  not  words,  are  my  objects.  But  I  had  supposed 
that  Kuriake  (Kv^ocxri)  was  the  source  of  Kirche  in  German, 
Kirh  and  Church.  ("  Kyroike"^  I  never  heard  of.  It  may  be 
all  right.)  Some  philologists  now  say  that  this  is  all  wrong, 
and  that  kirk  or  church  comes  from  the  Saxon.  I  can  only  say 
I  really  do  not  know,  nor  have  at  this  moment  the  means  of 
ascertaining  :  if,  indeed,  it  be  ascertainable  with  any  certainty. 
But  the  truth  is,  I  have  a  great  dislike  of  the  word  "  church," 
because  no  man  knows  what  it  means. 

What  does  it  mean  ?  ]\Ir.  G.'s  congregation  might  build  him 
a  new  church.  Then  it  means  a  building.  Or  ]\Ir.  S.  may  be 
a  member  of  Mr.  G.'S  church.  Then  it  means  an  assembly 
under  the  presidency  of  Mr.  G.  In  England,  "  he  is  going  into 
the  church,"  means,  he  is  going  to  become  a  clergyman  :  he  is 
gone  to  church,  means  the  public  service  or  worship :  gone  to  the 
church,  means  the  building  again. 

The  Ptoman  Catholic  Church,  and  the  Greek  Church,  are 
large  bodies  of  persons  professing  Christianity,  associated  under 
these   designations.      So   of    Presbyterians,    and    Covenanters, 

'  We  have  just  received  from  some  kind  friend  in  America  a  copy  of  a  peri- 
odical of  this  j-car,  containing  an  article,  "The  Old  Testament  Saints  part  of  the 
Church  ;"  and  inside  it  a  letter,  by  the  author  of  "Have  we  a  Revelation  from 
God,"  reviewing  and  refuting  it  ;  and,  as  we  think  it  likely  to  "be  useful  to  our 
readers,  we  will  give  them  the  opportunity  of  perusing  it,  and  of  judging  whether 
"  the  visible  church  is  identical  under  both  dispensations ; "  and  whether 
"  nothing  more  can  be  said  of  the  chunli  now  "  than  could  be  said  of  Israel 

-  The  word  used  by  the  writer  of  the  article. 


Lutherans,  Episcopalians.  If  you  press  the  matter,  the  church 
is  the  teaching  authoritative  part  of  it.  This  is  so  even  among 
Protestants.  The  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  England  tell  us  the 
church  can  decree  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  has  authority  in 
matters  of  faith.  So  that  we  have  to  know  Avhat  a  person 
means  by  "the  church"  before  we  can  reply  to  a  question  as 
to  it. 

But  I  will  just  mention  a  little  bit  of  history  which  refers  to 
this,  and  why  it  is  so  current  a  word.  "When  James  I.,  or,  as 
we  should  say  with  Scottish  Covenanters,  James  VI.,  had  the 
Bible  translated,  the  translation  in  popular  use  was  the  Geneva 
one  made  by  the  refugees  in  Queen  Mary's  time.  This  always 
used  the  word  "  congregation."  Now  James  had  had  a  long 
experience,  or  knowledge  at  least,  of  his  mother's  conflicts  with 
John  Knox,  and  was  not  very  fond  of  Scottish  principles 
embodied  afterwards  in  the  Covenant,  and  used  to  say,  "  No 
bishop  no  king."  He  gave  strict  orders  to  have  the  word 
"  church"  everywhere,  and  not  "  congregation."  Hence  the 
prevalence  of  a  word  in  the  English  Translation  of  the  New 
Testament  which  has  really  no  fixed  meaning. 

Say  "  assembly,"  which  is  the  meaning  of  V/.y.'knaia  (ecclesia), 
and  all  ambiguity  disappears.  Ecclesia  was  the  assembly  of 
those  who  in  the  small  Grecian  states  were  citizens,  and  so  had 
right  to  vote  ;  and  then  it  was  applied  to  analogous  bodies  or 
meetings.  We  all  know  what  an  assemlly  means.  Only  now 
we  have  to  do  with  God's  assembly.  For  example,  "  Take  with 
thee  one  or  two  more,"  etc. ;  "  if  not,  tell  it  to  the  church." 
To  whom  is  it  to  be  told  ?  Well,  the  minister,  or  perhaps  the 
presbytery !  With  the  Roman  Catholic,  "  if  he  will  not  hear 
the  church"  assumes  awful  proportions. 

Now  say,  as  it  really  is,  the  assembly,  and  how  simple  all  is. 
If  wronged,  go  yourself  first  alone  ;  if  in  vain,  take  one  or  two 
others  ;  if  still  in  vain,  matters  being  ascertained,  tlien  "  tell  it 
to  the  assemUy."    For  the  present  mixed  state  of  tilings  this 



may  seem  inconvenient :  but  the  sense  of  the  words  is  plain 

Now  apply  this  to  Acts  vii,,  "  This  is  he  that  was  with  the 
asseiiibly  in  the  wilderness."  Can  anything  be  simpler  ?  Israel 
was  a  vast  assembly  in  the  wilderness,  and  assembled  themselves 
at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation.  For  though 
a  different  word  in  Hebrew,  the  tabernacle  got  its  name  from  its 
being  the  place  of  meeting.  But  then,  all  possible  reference 
to  the  church,  in  the  Christian  sense,  disappears.  Who  denies 
that  the  six  hundred  thousand  men  who  came  constantly  to  the 
entrance  of  the  court  were  an  assembly  ?  There  were  three  words 
used  for  it,  Kahal,  as  is  stated  by  the  writer,  from  Kahal  the 
verb  to  call  together,  Moeed  and  Heeda  or  Gncedah,  the  two  last 
from  Yaad,  to  appoint  a  place  or  time  of  meeting.  Hence  the 
tabernacle  was  called  Ohel  Moeed,  the  tent  or  tabernacle  of  the 

Israel  was  a  great  assembly  or  congregation,  as  none  can 
dispute,  but  which  proves  simply  nothing  as  to  its  being  what 
God's  assembly  is,  according  to  the  word,  now.  It  is  Ecclesia, 
an  assembly,  in  Acts  vii.,  and  the  word  being  simply  an 
assembled  multitude,  says  just  no  more  than  that.  The  identical 
word  is  used  when  it  is  said,  Acts  xix.,  "  having  so  said,  he  (the 
town  clerk)  dismissed  the  assembly."  Put  "  the  church  "  there 
and  what  nice  sense  you  will  have  ! 

I  quite  understand  it  will  be  said,  "  Yes,  but  they  were  God's 
assembly  in  the  wilderness."  Admitted  ;  but  the  whole  question 
remains;  that  is — Were  God's  assembly  then,  and  God's  assembly 
now,  constituted  on  the  same  principles,  on  the  same  basis  ? 
There  was  no  question  then  of  conversion,  or  faith,  or  anything 
of  the  kind,  or  even  profession.  They  were,  as  Scripture  ex- 
presses it,  of  the  fountain  of  Jacob,  descendants  of  Israel 
according  to  the  flesh,  and  under  condition  of  being  circumcised 
the  eighth  day  (which  by  the  by  none  of  those  born  in  the 
wilderness  were  at  that  time).      That  assembly  was  a  nation. 


God's  assembly  now  is  not.  The  fact  of  being  an  assembly,  or 
the  word,  proves  nothing ;  the  whole  question  remains  : — Are  the 
Israelitish  nation,  and  God's  assembly  called  by  grace,  the  same 
thing,  or  assembled  on  the  same  principles  ? 

This  writer  makes  some  enormous  statements  :  First,  "  The 
church  of  Pentecost  was  Israel,"  WHiy,  the  Jews  had  openly 
rejected  the  Lord,  and  Peter  in  his  sermon  says  to  those  who 
had  ears  to  hear,  "  Save  yourselves  from  this  untoicard  genera- 
tion" and  the  Lord  Himself  had  said,  "Behold  your  house 
is  left  unto  you  desolate  ;  for  I  say  unto  you,  ye  shall  not  see  Me 
henceforth  until  ye  say,  Blessed  is  He  that  cometh  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord."  They  were  a  judicially  rejected  people,  though 
not  for  ever  :  and  they  are  so  to  this  day.  They  were  "  men  of 
Israei  :"  but  the  assertion,  inconceivable  as  it  is,  only  shows  how 
far  a  false  principle  can  carry  any  one.  God  did  not  say  in 
Joel  "  He  would  give  the  great  outpouring  of  His  Spirit  to 
Israel."  He  said  He  woidd  pour  out  His  Spirit  on  all  flesh.  In 
patience  with  Israel  He  dealt  with  them,  and  began  at  Jeru- 
salem :  but  it  was  the  Holy  Ghost  being  given  to  Cornelius 
that  opened  fuUy  Peter's  eyes,  and  the  eyes  of  the  Jewish  Chris- 

But  let  us  enter  a  little  more  into  the  heart  of  the  matter. 
This  writer  says  of  Israel,  " '  To  them  were  committed  the  oracles 
of  God  :'  '  To  them  pertained  the  adoption,  glory,  covenant, 
giving  of  the  law,  service,  and  the  promises'  (Rom.  ix,  4), 
Nothing  more  can  be  said  of  the  church  now,"  Now  here  is 
the  nucleus,  the  heart  of  the  question  :  not  the  introduction  of 
Old  Testament  saints  into  church  privileges  (unscriptural  as  that 
is),  but  reducing  God's  assembly  now  to  the  measure  of  Jewish 
privileges.  The  former  might,  alone,  be  treated  as  a  mistake  ; 
the  latter  deprives  God's  assembly  of  its  true  divine  standing, 
and  that  is  what  makes  it  of  moment.  The  law  was  given  by 
Moses  :  grace  and  truth  came  {iyinro)  by  Jesus  Christ, 

Let  us  see  what  Scripture  says  on  the  matter.    In  the  taber 


nacle  there  was  a  veil,  behiud  which  God  sat  between  the 
cherubim ;  the  Holy  Ghost  thus  signifying  that  the  way  into 
the  holiest  was  not  yet  made  manifest,  while  as  yet  the  first 
tabernacle  had  its  standing.  Now,  by  Christ's  death  the  veil  is 
rent  from  top  to  bottom  ;  and  we  have  boldness  to  enter  into 
the  holiest  by  the  blood  of  Jesus,  by  a  new  and  living  way, 
which  He  hath  consecrated  for  us  through  the  veil,  that  is  to 
say.  His  flesh.  We  can  walk,  and  are  to  walk  in  the  light,  as  God 
is  in  the  light.  Is  tliis  "nothing  more"  to  this  writer?  I  will 
not  insist  on  God's  righteousness  being  declared  now  (the  right- 
eousness of  God  being  revealed,  not  prophesied  of)  because  I 
desire  to  take  what  is  most  positive  and  on  the  very  surface  of 
Scripture.  See  Gal.  iv.  :  "  Now,  I  say,  the  heir,  as  long  as  he  is 
a  child,  differeth  nothing  from  a  slave,  though  he  be  lord  of  all ; 
but  is  under  tutors  and  governors  until  the  time  appointed  of 
the  father  ;  even  so  we,  when  we  were  children,  were  in  bondage 
under  the  rudiments  of  the  world.  But  when  the  fulness  of  the 
time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  His  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made 
under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law,  that  we 
might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons ;  and  because  ye  are  sons, 
God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  His  Son  into  your  hearts, 
crying,  Abba,  Father.  Wherefore,  thou  art  no  more  a  slave,  but 
a  son."  Is  it  "  nothing  more"  to  be  brought  to  be  sons  of  God 
by  known  and  accomplished  redemption,  and  know  it ;  to  live 
in  the  relationship,  instead  even  of  an  heir  differing  nothing 
from  a  slave  ? 

Will  the  writer  allow  me  to  ask  him.  Were  the  Jews  under 
the  first  covenant,  or  the  second,  in  their  relationship  with  God  ? 
Are  we  under  that  first  covenant  ?  But  more,  we  have  the  dif- 
ference clearly  brought  out  in  Heb.  x.  9,  "  He  taketh  away  the 
first  that  He  may  establish  the  second."  It  will  be  said  that 
these  were  ceremonies  ;  but  what  ceremonies  ?  The  priesthood 
is  changed  ;  is  that  merely  a  ceremony,  a  better  hope  by  which 
we  draw  nigh  to  God.     And  see  the  difference  :  the  sacrifices 


could  not  make  the  comers  thereto  perfect  as  pertaining  to  the 
conscience.  There  was  a  remembrance  of  sins  every  year  ;  now, 
we  are  perfected  for  ever  who  are  sanctified ;  so  that  Christ,  when 
He  had  by  Himself  purged  our  sins,  sat  down  at  the  right  hand 
of  the  Majesty  in  the  heavens.  He  is  seated  there,  because  all 
is  done,  till  His  enemies  are  made  His  footstool :  and  our  sins 
and  iniquities  are  remembered  no  more.  The  worshippers  once 
purged  are  so  in  such  sort  that  they  should  have  "  no  more  con- 
science of  sins,"  instead  of  a  remembrance  of  them  every  year. 
"We  have  eternal  redemption,  a  purged  conscience,  because  the 
sins  are  purged  once  for  all ;  and  boldness  to  enter  into  the 
Holiest :  "  Giving  thanks  to  the  Father,  who  hath  made  us 
meet  to  be  partakers  of  the  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light" 
(Colv  i.  12)  :  Having  the  knowledge  of  salvation  given  to  His 
people  by  the  remission  of  their  sins.  Is  all  this  "  nothing  more" 
than  Israel  had  ? 

Take  what  is  said  by  the  Lord,  and  this  will  lead  us  to  the 
question  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Than  John  Baptist  no  greater 
prophet  had  ever  arisen,  nor  of  those  born  of  woman  any  one 
greater ;  "  but  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  greater  than 
he."  Many  kings,  prophets,  and  righteous  men,  had  desired  to 
see  the  things  which  the  disciples  saw,  and  had  not  seen  them  ; 
but  "  blessed,"  said  the  Lord,  "  are  your  eyes,  for  they  see." 
They  were  more  blessed  than  their  kings  and  prophets — they 
had  Messiah  with  them.  Yet  so  great  was  the  privilege  and 
advantage  of  having  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  it  was  "  expedient " 
that  Christ  should  leave  them  ;  for,  if  He  did  not,  the  Comforter 
would  not  come ;  but,  if  He  went  away.  He  would  send  Him. 
AVhat  a  thing  to  lose,  Christ's  personal  presence  in  grace !  Yet 
so  great  Avas  to  be  the  effect  of  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
that  it  was  better  He  should  go.  Yet  they  woidd  persuade  us 
that  He  had  been  there  all  the  time  of  the  Old  Testament !  See 
1  Peter  i.  They  searched  their  own  prophecies  and  found  they 
did  not  minister  to  themselves  but  to  us  the  things  now  reported 


by  tlie  Holy  Ghost  sent  clown  from  heaven.  Was  the  promise  to 
pour  out  the  Spirit,  or  His  presence  *'  nothing"  ?  Clearly  it  was 
not  anything  if  He  was  there  all  the  time  as  when  poured  out. 

And  now  mark  the  foundation  of  this  immense  truth.  God 
never  dwelt  with  Adam  innocent,  nor  with  Abraham  or  others  ; 
but  as  soon  as  even  an  external  redemption  was  accomplished, 
we  read  "  They  shall  know  (Exod.  xxix.)  that  I  am  the  Lord  their 
God,  that  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  that  I  may 
dwell  among  them:''  and  the  Shechinah  of  glory  came  down 
and  sat  between  the  cherubim,  and  led  them  in  the  wilderness. 
So  it  was,  when  an  eternal  and  full  redemption  had  been  accom- 
plished, and  man  (though  much  more  than  a  man)  sat  down  in 
virtue  of  it  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  came 
down  to  dwell  in  God's  people  individually  and  collectively. 

We  must  not  confound  between  the  divine  action  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  His  coming  in  person  to  make  His  abode  with 
us.  I  think  it  will  be  found  in  Scripture  that  all  direct  action 
of  God  from  the  creation  is  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Even  Christ 
could  say,  "  If  I,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  cast  out  devils."  At  any 
rate.  He  moved  on  the  face  of  the  waters.  By  His  Spirit  God 
garnished  the  heavens.  He  inspired  the  prophets,  and  wrought 
all  through  tlie  divine  history ;  but  that  was  not  His  personal 
coming.  So  the  Son  created  all  things  ;  but  He  did  not  come 
imtil  the  incarnation :  "  I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  am 
come  into  the  world  ;  again,  I  leave  the  world  and  go  to  the 
Father"  (John  xvi.  28).  So  speaks  Christ  of  the  Holy  Ghost : 
"  If  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you  ;  but 
if  I  depart,  I  wiU  send  Him  unto  you  ;  and  when  He  is  come" 
etc.  (John  xvi.  7,  8),  And  this  was  so  distinct  a  thing  that  it  is 
called  "the  Holy  Ghost,"  without  saying  came,  or  given,  or 
anything  else.  Thus,  John  vii.  39,  "For  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
not  yet "  (given,  is  added,  it  is  not  in  the  text),  "because  that  Jesus 
was  not  yet  glorified."     So,  the  disciples  baptized  by  John,  in 


Acts  xix,  2,  said,  "  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  the 
Holy  Ghost  is." 

All  Jews  knew  there  was  a  Holy  Ghost ;  but  this  was  His 
promised  presence  :  and  this  is  easily  understood  as  to  John's 
disciples,  because  he  had  spoken  of  Christ's  work  as  twofold  : 
He  was  the  Lamb  of  God  ;  and  He  it  is  that  baptizeth  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.  It  was  the  second  great  part  of  His  work  baptizing 
with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  it  could  not  be  done  till  He  was 
glorified.  So  He  tells  His  disciples  after  His  resurrection,  "  Ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence." 
He  Himself  was  anointed  and  sealed  with  the  Holy  Ghost  when 
He  stood,  the  first  man  fully,  perfectly,  acceptable  to  God,  who 
had  ever  existed  since  evil  entered, — perfect  in  Himself.  "  God 
anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
power  "  (Acts  x.  38). 

And  what  is  the  effect  of  the  Holy  Ghost's  dwelling  in  us  ? 
The  love  of  God  shed  abroad  in  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
given  to  us  (Eom.  v.)  We  know  that  we  are  in  Christ  and 
Christ  is  in  us  (John  xiv.)  We  know  that  we  are  sons  and  cry 
Abba,  Father,  the  Spirit  bearing  witness  %vith  our  spirit  (Eom. 
viii.)  He  takes  of  the  things  of  Christ,  the  glorified  man  on  high, 
and  shows  them  to  us  (John  xvi.)  Our  bodies  are  temples  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  which  we  have  of  God  (1  Cor.  vi.)  :  so  that  God 
dwells  in  us  and  we  in  Him,  and  we  know  it  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
given  to  us  (1  John  iv.  13).  What  eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard, 
nor  hath  entered  into  the  heart  of  man,  God  hath  revealed  unto 
us  by  His  Spirit  (1  Cor.  ii.)  Wliere  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is, 
there  is  liberty  (2  Cor,  iii.) :  and  Christ  living  thus  in  us,  the 
body  is  dead  because  of  sin,  the  Spirit  life  because  of  righteous- 
ness (Eom.  viii.)  3Ian  at  the  right  hand  of  God  in  righteousness, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  dwelling  in  the  believer  as  the  consequence  of 
it,  characterise  Christianity. 

All  this  is  lost  by  this  system  [which  tells  us  "  that  the 
visible  church  is  identical  under  both  dispensations  "J.     What 


made  it  expedient  for  Christ  to  leave  His  disciples,  we  are  told, 
is  all  the  same  as  what  they  had  before  He  came !  The  anointing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  "  nothing  " ! 

Besides,  "  he  that  is  joined  to  the  Lord  is  one  Spirit,"  and  this 
leads  to  the  corporate  difference.  Till  Christ  ascended  up  on 
high,  there  was  no  Man  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  no  one  to 
whom  the  believer  could,  as  a  present  fact,  be  united  ;  and,  con- 
sequently, as  we  have  seen,  no  Holy  Ghost  come  down  to  unite 
him  to  Him.  But  Christ  ascended  up  on  high,  a  Man,  in 
righteousness,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  consequently  came  down  :  not 
to  the  world  but  to  believers.  Let  us  hold  fast  this  great  truth 
which  is  the  essence  of  Christianity,  as  the  cross  and  God's  love 
are  the  foundation  of  it.  The  Head  being  on  high,  we  are 
quickened  together  with  Him,  according  to  the  power  witli  which 
God  wrought  in  raising  Him  from  the  dead  and  setting  Him 
there  ;  and  raised  us  up,  Jews  and  Gentiles  together,  and  made 
us  sit  together  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ :  (not  with  Him  yet, 
Eph.  i.  19-23  ;  ii.  1-7).  Neither  part  of  this  was  true  before 
Christ  was  glorified.  There  was  no  such  glorified  Man  ;  no 
Holy  Ghost  come  down  from  heaven.  On  this,  Scripture  is  as 
clear  as  possibly  can  be.  There  was  the  Son  of  God  who  could 
quicken  ;  but  no  raised  glorified  Man,  whose  going  to  the  Father 
was  the  testimony  of  God's  righteousness ;  nor  the  Holy  Ghost 
come  down,  the  divine  witness  of  it.  We  are  members  of  His  body : 
He  has  given  Him,  as  so  exalted,  to  be  head  over  all  things  to  the 
church  which  is  His  body.  Thus,  "  by  one  Spirit  we  are  all 
baptized  into  one  body,"  Jews  or  Greeks.  Israel  had  lost  liis 
place  as  such.  There  was  no  difference  now.  By  the  cross  the 
middle  wall  of  partition  was  broken  down,  and  of  twain  one  new 
man  to  be  made  ;  and  both  reconciled  to  God  in  one  body  by  the 
cross  (Eph.  ii.)  Now  the  duty  and  essence  of  Judaism  was  the 
keeping  of  the  wall  up  ;  Christianity  as  a  system  on  eartli  is 
founded  on  its  being  broken  down.  Were  the  Gentiles  in  the 
church  brought  into  the  Jewish  state  as  is  alleged  ?     No,  lie 


makes  of  twain  one,  new  man  and  reconciles  both,  and  came  and 
preached  peace  to  those  afar  off  and  those  nigh  ;  for  neither  af 
them  had  it.  The  apostles  and  prophets  (the  prophets  are  the  pro- 
phets of  the  New  Testament,  see  Eph.  iii.  5)  were  the  foundation 
of  a  new  edifice,  "  a  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit."  This 
had  never  been  promised,  never  revealed  at  all,  could  not  have 
been.  To  say  there  was  no  difference  between  Jew  and  Gentile 
would  have  destroyed  Judaism  at  one  stroke.  It  was  not  revealed 
at  all  (Eph.  iii.  4-11 ;  Col.  i.  26  ;  Eom.  xvi.  25, 26.  In  26th  verse 
it  is  not  "  the  scriptures  of  the  prophets ; "  but  now  is  made 
manifest  by  prophetic  scriptures,  y§apav  iT^o(pnTix.wv). 

But  the  grand  point  is  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost  con- 
sequent on  the  exaltation  of  Christ  as  man  in  rigliteousness  to 
the  right  hand  of  God.  So  when  Christ  says,  "  I  wiU  build  my 
church "  (on  the  revelation  made  by  the  Father  to  Peter),  what 
was  the  meaning  of  that  if  He  had  been  building  it  all  the  time, 
from  Abel  onwards  ?  The  church,  then,  the  body  of  Christ,  is 
formed  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  consequent  on  the 
exaltation  of  Christ  to  the  right  hand  of  God  (1  Cor.  xii.  12, 13). 
The  Holy  Gliost  as  so  come  "  was  not  yet,"  when  Christ  was  not 
glorified ;  and  this  "  baptism,"  as  is  declared  in  Acts  i.,  took 
place  a  few  days  after,  that  is,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  (Acts  ii.) 

Eomans  xi  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  church,  "  the  body  of 
Christ."  It  is  the  olive  tree  of  promise  (and  the  church  was  never 
promised  even) ;  and  it  is  accompanied  with  a  revelation  that, 
when  the  Jews  are  grafted  in  again,  the  Gentile  branches  would 
be  broken  off.  There  were  promises  and  prophecies  at  any  rate, 
which  apply  to  Gentiles  as,  "Eejoice,  ye  Gentiles,  with  His 
people ; "  but  if  Israel  be  God's  people,  the  church  cannot  exist 
with  it ;  for  there  (that  is,  in  the  church)  there  is  no  difference  of 
Jew  and  Gentile,  and  blindness  in  part  is  happened  unto  Israel 
till  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in.  They  are  enemies 
as  touching  the  gospel ;  and  "the  casting  away  of  them  is  the  re- 
conciling of  the  world."     The  church  is  "the  body  of  Christ" 


formed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  on  earth,  while  Christ  sits  on  the 
right  hand  of  God. 

I  should  have  many  things  to  note  if  I  merely  took  up  the 
article.  "  House  of  the  Lord,"  or  any  application  of  it  to  the 
place  where  the  people  meet,  is  wholly  withoib  foundation  in 
Scripture.  "  The  church  of  the  wilderness  "  is  also  unscriptural. 
"  The  kingdom  of  heaven  "  is  not  the  church  at  all.  It  is  really 
too  bad  to  say,  "  the  apostles  do  not  say  a  word  about  a  nev/ 
organisation."  "  There  is  a  disannulling  of  the  commandment 
going  before  for  the  weakness  and  unprofitableness  thereof." 
Did  not  Paul  organise  the  church  ?  Were  the  priests  and  Levites, 
priests  and  Levites  of  the  Christian  church  ? 

There  would  be  another  difficulty  which  has  not  been 
noticed  at  all : — That  before  exodus  there  was  no  assembly  of 
any  kind  at  all.  Individual  saints,  Enochs  and  Noahs  and 
Abrahams  there  were,  but  there  was  no  assembly  ;  but  I  do  not 
go  beyond  what  is  on  the  surface  of  the  article. 

What  I  press  is  this,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  ;  and  that, 
when  He  came,  the  baptism,  by  which  the  saints  were  made  one 
body,  took  place ;  the  assembly  is  the  body  of  Christ  and  the 
dwelling  place  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  earth  :  and  it  never  existed 
before  that  baptism,  and  could  not ;  for  the  Head  did  not  exist ; 
nor  was  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  consequence,  descended  to  unite  men 
to  Him  so  as  to  form  His  body. 

He  gave  Himself  not  for  that  nation  only,  but  to  gather 
together  in  one  the  children  of  God  which  were  scattered 


The  true  force  of  1  Peter  ii.  24  lias  been  called  in  question  by 
those  who  seek  not  only  to  make  Christ's  life  vicarious,  but  His 
sufferings  during  the  time  of  His  active  service  penal.  The 
thought  that  all  the  sufferings  of  that  Blessed  One  have  infinite 
value,  and  that  they  were  all  for  us,  every  Christian  heart  would 
close  in  with  adoringly.  There  may  be  obscurity  of  mind  con- 
nected "with  it ;  but  the  heart  is  right.  But  when  intellectual 
proofs  are  attempted  to  be  given  to  sustain  unsound  doctrine  on 
this  point,  so  as  to  undermine  the  true  character  and  value  of 
atonement,  and  to  cast  a  cloud  on  divine  righteousness,  it  is 
desirable  then  to  maintain  the  truth.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say 
that  those  who  speak  of  the  appropriation  of  Christ's  living 
righteousness  to  us  for  righteousness,  and  hold  the  sufferings  of 
His  active  service  to  have  been  penal  and  vicarious,  have  in  no 
case  a  full,  clear,  and  scriptural  gospel.  I  am  sure  many,  who 
from  the  teaching  they  have  had  hold  it,  are  as  far  as  my  own 
heart  could  desire  from  the  wish  to  weaken  the  tnith  of  atone- 
ment and  the  value  of  Christ's  blood-shedding,  without  which 
there  is  no  remission.  They  have  not  seen  the  deep  evil  lying 
at  the  root  of  a  doctrine  which  speaks  of  vicarious  sufferings, 
and  bearing  of  sins  to  which  no  remission  is  attached.  I  am 
quite  ready  to  believe  that  the  most  violent  accusers  of  the 
doctrine  which  looked  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ  upon  the  cross 
as  the  alone  atonement  and  propitiation  for  sin  do  not  wish  to 
enfeeble  its  value.  But  we  may  inquire  into  the  justness  of  all 
views  which  we  do  not  judge  to  be  scriptural,  and  press  too  with 
confidence  what  we  find  in  Scripture. 

252  THE  BEARING  OF  FIRST  PETER  ii.  24. 

I  do  not  believe  in  the  penal  and  vicarious  character  of 
Christ's  sufferings  during  His  active  service,  nor  do  I  believe  in 
the  appropriation  of  His  legal  righteousness  to  me  as  failing  in 
legal  righteousness  myself.  I  am  satisfied  that  those  who  hold 
it  have  not  a  full,  true,  scriptural  gospel ;  by  some  it  is  used 
for  the  maintenance  of  what  is  horribly  derogatory  to  Christ, 
I  have  known  many  valued  and  beloved  saints  who  hold  that 
Christ,  under  the  law,  satisfied,  by  His  active  fulfilment  of  it, 
for  our  daily  failure  under  it.  I  believe  it  to  be  a  very  serious 
mistake,  though  I  may  value  them  as  His  beloved  people  still. 
I  believe  in  His  obedience  to  the  law ;  I  believe  that  all  His 
moral  perfectness,  completed  in  death,  was  available  to  me  as 
that  in  which  He  was  personally  agreeable  to  God,  and  a  Lamb 
without  spot  and  blemish.  But  these  are  not  the  appropriation 
to  me  of  legal  righteousness.  But  I  am  not  now  purposing  to 
go  over  all  this  ground  ;  I  merely  maintain  the  ground  on  which 
I  stand,  and  the  doctrine  which  I  hold  as  scriptural,  and  as  of 
immense  importance  to  the  church  just  now.  I  would  do  it 
meekly,  patiently,  that  souls  may  be  delivered  from  error  and 
bondage  iuto  the  liberty  of  the  truth  of  God,  which  is  the 
only  real  power  of  godliness ;  but  I  would  do  it  firmly  and 

In  the  attempt  to  maintain  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  bearing 

sins  all  His  life,  the  translation  of  the  text  I  refer  to  has  been 

called  in  question.     I  am  satisfied  that  it  is  perfectly  correct. 

As  an  element  in  this  question,  I  would  now  examine  it.     The 

English  version  is,  *'  Who  his  own  self  bare  our  sins  in  his  own 

body  on  the  tree."     A  simple  person  would  surely,  in  reading 

Peter,  refer  to  His  sufferings  in  death.     Thus,  in  chapter  iii.  I 

read  :  "For  Christ  also  hath  once  suffered  for  sins,  the  just  for 

the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God,  being  put  to  death  in 

tli\  flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit."     No  one  denies  that 

Q\^Y^\i  suffered,  during  His  life,  sufferings  which  found  their 

pgj,£gjtion  in  His  death,  besides  the  wrath-bearing  character  of 

THE  BEARING  OF  FIRST  PETER  ii.  24.  253 

it ;   for  He  was  obedient  unto  death,  even  tlie  death  of  the 

But  the  question  is,  "  Was  there  sin-bearing  during  His 
active  service,  or  was  He  kept  up  as  the  Lamb  to  bear  sin  ? " 
It  turns  on  the  word  "  bear,"  d^i^vgyxE.  It  is  alleged  that  if  it 
meant  "  bare,"  it  must  be  yT^jvsyxe  or  llSaffraes  or  s>.a/3g.  All  this 
is  a  mistake.  A  sacrificial  word  is,  I  do  not  doubt,  purposely- 
used  ;  but  ava^p'iOM  means  "  to  bear,  or  undergo,"  probably  because 
sacrificial  victims,  which  were  offered  up,  were  supposed  to  bear 
sins  :  at  any  rate,  it  does  mean  "  to  bear,  undergo,  sustain." 
The  truth  is,  determining  the  meaning  of  a  word  by  etymology, 
in  a  cultivated  language,  is  the  most  absurd  thing  possible.  It 
is  interesting  as  philological  research  ;  but,  as  determining  the 
usus  Zoquendi,  it  is  ridiculous.  I  might  say  "  hell-fire "  must 
mean  "  covering  sins "  (for  it  is  the  same  word  as  "  to  heal," 
used  also  provincially  for  roofing) — for  the  same  reason,  hence, 
that  the  fire  of  hell  was  purgatorial  or  remissory  !  It  did 
.originally  mean  a  covered  place,  hades,  and  hence,  gradually, 
everlasting  punishment.  'Afapjsw  does  mean  to  offer  in  sacrifice  : 
it  means  "  to  recreate  oneself,  to  remember,  to  cough  up,  to 
return,  to  cast  the  sin  on  another,  to  weigh  or  consider,"  etc. 
The  question  is,  does  it  mean  to  bear,  to  undergo  the  pain  and 
burden  of  ?  and,  when  used  sacrificially,  can  it  be  separated  from 
the  altar  of  sacrifice  ?  I  say  it  does  mean  "  to  bear,  to  undergo  the 
pain  and  burden  of  anything;"  and,  when  used  in  connection  with 
sacrifice,  it  cannot  be  separated  from  actual  offering  up  to  God. 

First,  it  means  "  to  bear  or  undergo."  I  must  turn  to  the 
dictionaries  for  this,  and  the  passages  in  which  it  is  used.  They 
leave  no  sort  of  question.  It  is  only  systematising,  and  not  the 
facts  in  the  Greek  language,  which  can  lead  any  one  to  deny  it. 
I  turn  to  H.  Stephanus.  I  find  dvapipstv,  ferrc,  pcrferre,  pati,  ut 
Christus  dicitur,  annyy.ih  2'>cccata  nostra.  (1  Pet.  ii.  24  ;  Heb. 
ix.  21.)  Citatur  e  Thucydide  dvup'-snv  xivB-jvov;,  quod  durum  sit 
reddere,  Ferre  pericula :  potiusque  verti  debeat,  Suhire  pericula 


254  THE  BEARING  OF  FIRST  PETER  ii.  24. 

ter  "  to  undergo,"  that  is,  than  "  to  bear ").  The  general 
Chi^e  of  "  undergoing  the  burden  and  pain  of  "  is  evident ;  and 
thet  is  our  point  here.  There  is  a  reference  in  the  beginning  of 
leg'  article  to  Aristides  (I  suppose,  ^Hus  Aristides,  the  rhetori- 
it  n),  which  I  cannot  verify.  So  Pape,  anfsicli  nchnien,  crtragen, 
fob  take  on  oneself ;  "  "  to  bear  "  zad-jticug,  Thucydides  ;  (pdovovg 
I  h.^ial36Xo-og  ■rroXiii.ov,  that  is,  "envy,  'calumny,  war,"  Polybius 
Chri.Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus.  He  adds,  New  Testament, 
for  oul'  and  Scott  givg  "  to  uphold,  to  take  on  one,"  Latin  sustinere 
mistake,  though^^^g  (^»^j^^-^  ^nd  Thucydides).  It  is  thus  perfectly 
I  believe  lP^^[■^Q  -word  means  "  to  bear  the  burden  of  anything, 
moral  pej^^  -j^j-^g  etymological  sense  of  "  to  bring  up  or  back " 
tliat  ii^j.g  absurdity  here, 

^-'  We  have  now  to  examine  the  scriptural  use  of  it  in  connec- 
tion with  sacrifice,  and  in  particular  the  passage  in  Peter. 
'Ai-^ji/e/xe  is  a  sacrificial  word.  It  is  used  here  (if  we  are  to  take 
it  as  it  usually  is  taken,  as  referring  to  Isa.  liii.  12)  for  Nbo 
nasa,  which  means  "  to  lift  up,  to  bear,  to  forgive,"  and  here 
confessedly  "to  bear."  It  is  alleged — for  I  have  considered 
diligently  what  is  alleged  against  it — that  it  cannot  mean  "  to 
bear  passively  with  "  {bv),  as  would  be  the  case  with  uvr^viyKi  It) 
TO.  This  is  a  mistake.  Aaron  was  to  bear  the  names  of  the 
children  upon  (^J?),  his  heart  (Exod.  xxviil  29).  So  with  the 
judgment  in  verse  30. 

It  is  said  that  Isa.  liii.  4  is  translated  iXajSi  by  divine  inspira- 
tion, and  hence  it  could  not  be  avrjusyKB,  in  verse  12.  But  this 
proves,  if  anything  (for  the  word  may  be  translated  differently 
in  different  places  according  to  the  sense,  but  if  it  be  the  Spirit's 
purpose  to  make  the  difference  here,  it  proves  this),  that  He 
would  not  use  a  sacrificial  vicarious  word  in  verse  4,  but  would 
in  verse  12  (that  is,  that  the  "bearing,  in  verse  4,  was  not 
sacrificial,  but  is  in  verse  12)  ;  for  Hebrews  ix.  28,  that  Christ 
was  once  offered  £/';  ri  toKkuv  an,nyx.iTv  a/jba^rlag^  are  the  very 
words  of  Isa.  liii.  12.     So  that,  if  this  is  of  any  value,  we  have 

THE  BEARING  OF  FIRST  PETER  ii.  24.  255 

not  an  inference  that  it  cannot  be  used  in  one  place  because  it 
is  not  in  another ;  and  that  Peter,  if  he  had  quoted  it,  would 
have  used  another  word  for  "  nasa  "  in  verse  12,  because  Matthew 
did  in  verse  4  (an  argument,  when  said  to  be  from  inspiration, 
which  I  decline  characterising),  but  a  direct  proof  that  inspira- 
tion will  not  use  a  vicarious  sacrificial  word  as  to  Christ's  living 
sympathies  and  sorrows  ;  but  that  it  will  and  does  use  it  when 
it  speaks  of  bearing  sins  when  offered  up  to  God. 

And  now,  leaving  argument,  which  I  am  glad  to  do,  what  is 
the  scriptural  use  of  amp^u,  in  connection  with  sins  and 
sacrifices,  with  or  without  It/  t61  The  following  instances  will 
show  :  Xum.  xiv.  33,  xa/  dvoieovffi  r^v  rropvsiav  {j'luv.  The  use  of  it 
in  this  passage  is  the  more  noticeable  :  save  in  Lev.  xx.  19,  the 
wojd  always  used  for  bearing  the  consequence  of  our  own  or  a 
father's  sin  (and  under  the  old  covenant  this  is  the  same  thing) 
is  Xa,a/Sa!/w  in  the  Septuagint.  In  Lev.  xx.  19,  it  is  arro'iewzai. 
In  Exod.  xxviii.  29,  Xri-^trui  to,  6v6/zara  It!  to  Xoyi76v ;  and  for  the 
same  words  in  verse  30,  it  is  xa/  ohu  rag  y.^lang  crl  rou.  Indeed, 
the  argument  as  to  XafijSdvu  may  justly  be  carried  much  farther, 
for  >.a,a/3avw  is  regularly  used  for  bearing  the  fruit  of  one's  sin, 
bringing  sin  on  oneself  in  its  consequences.  It  is  not  bearing  it 
vicariously,  but  as  a  consequence  on  oneself.  The  only  apparent 
exceptions  that  I  £»m  aware  of,  and  they  are  only  apparent,  are 
Lev.  xyi.  22,  the  scapegoat ;  and  Ezekiel  iv.  4,  5,  6.  But  the  first 
is  \^-^crai  iis  yny  u^arov,  "  He  shall  carry  them  into  a  land  not 
inhabited,"  and  in  the  case  of  Ezekiel,  it  was  clearly  not  (b) 
vicarious,  but  representative,  and  the  same  as  the  ordinary 
case.  In  a  word,  d'laoriav  Xafj-jSavnv  is  not  used  for  vicarious 
bearing,  but  bearing  the  consequence  of  one's  own  fault,  coming 
under  the  effect  of  it  oneself,  pocnas  lucre. 

But  what  is  important  is  to  see  the  actual  use  of  am^pioui, 
when  used  with  sacrifice.  Num.  xiv.  33,  and  Isa.  liii.  11,  are 
plain  proofs  that  it  is  used  for  bearing  sins  penally.  But  now, 
as  to  sacrifice.     The  reader  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  act  of 

256  THE  BEARING  OF  FIRST  PETER  ii.  24. 

having  the  sin  on  the  victim  is  not  in  itself  the  expiation.  That 
puts  the  victim  in  the  answering  place.  For  the  other,  death 
and  the  judicial  action  of  God  must  come  in  to  put  it  away.  It 
must  be  slain  and  offered  on  the  altar — as  it  is  said,  "  by  means 
of  death."  Christ  had  to  take  our  sins  on  Him,  and  therefore 
to  die — give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many.  Every  one,  therefore, 
believes  He  had  taken  them  on  Him  before  He  gave  up  the 
ghost.  The  question  is,  did  He  take  them  on  Him  in  order  to 
suffer  on  the  cross,  and  suffer  the  penal  judgment  of  them  there ; 
as  the  victim  was  brought  up  to  the  altar,  then  the  sins  con- 
fessed on  his  head,  and  then  the  victim  itself,  thus  made  sin, 
slain  and  burnt?  Or  was  Christ  born  into  this  penal  state, 
suffering  it  before  He  actually  gave  Himself  up  to  be  offered  on 
the  cross  ?  Was  He  under  the  penal  consequences  of  sin  in  the 
sufferings  of  His  active  service — was  that  penally  from  God  ? 
or  in  the  sufferings  of  the  cup  He  took  to  drink  upon  the  cross 
from  God  ?  I  believe  the  latter — that  it  was  after  the  victim 
was  presented  as  an  offering  to  the  altar  (in  Christ's  case  we 
must  say  presented  Himself  as  a  spotless  victim  to  the  cross) 
that  the  penal  sufferings  for  sins  were  on  Him,  because  our  sins 
were  on  Him ;  and  that  it  is  to  this  bearing  of  sins  alone  that 
the  passage  in  Peter  applies.  Christ  offered  Himself  without 
spot  to  God.  Jehovah  laid  then  the  iniquity  upon  Him.  He 
who  knew  no  sin  was  then  made  sin.  Did  the  Lord  lay  the 
iniquity  upon  Him  before  He  offered  Himself  without  spot,  a 
proved  spotless  lamb  ?  One  who  knew  no  sin  was  made  sin 
when  He  had  bowed  to  His  Father's  will  to  drink  that  cup. 

Offering  has,  in  Scripture,  a  double  character.  It  is  used  for 
presenting  the  victim,  or  indeed  any  offering,  X'*3n,  y''\^'\\,  hcevi  or 
hiknv,  "to  cause  to  come  nigh  ;"  but  avapsgw  It/  to  is  not  used  for 
tills,  though  in  grammar  I  know  not  why  it  should  not  be.  It 
is  for  hard  causes  in  judgment  in  Deut.  i.  l7,  avoisin  aWl  I-t^  ifi's, 
"  Ye  shall  bring  it  to  me,"  but  not  for  offering  that  I  can  find. 
If  the  reader  takes  Lev.  i.,  he  will  find  for  these  words  T^offpl^«/» 

THE  BEARING  OF  FIRST  PETER  ii.  24.  257 

or  crpftffaye/v,  to  bring  up.  This  was  the  presenting  the  offering 
which  was  to  be  a  victim.  But  as  soon  as  the  victim,  or  part  of 
it,  is  spoken  of  as  lurnt  on  tlve  altar  (Lev.  iii.  5),  then  it  is 
avciaovm  ahzci  l-xi  rh  dudia-STniiov.  So  in  verse  9,  the  general  idea 
of  offering  is  rrooeotaouai,  Mkriv,  and  in  verse  11,  the  burning  of  it 
on  the  altar  avoleovm  h-l  to.  And  this  is  the  regular  use  of  it  in 
Lev.,  and  elsewhere,  as  Exod.  xxix.  18, 25  ;  xxx.  20.  Lev.  ii.  16  ; 
iii.  16  ;  iv.  10,  19,  26,  31 ;  vi.  15,  35  ;  vii.  21  ;  viii.  16,  20,  21, 
27  ;  ix.  10,  19  ;  xvL  25  ;  xvii.  6.  Kum.  v.  26  ;  xviii.  17.  This 
last  hast  the  sam.e  force,  but  there  is  not  i^i  rh  hsiaar^^iov.  That  is, 
avappco  £■-;  TO  is  the  technical  expression  for  consumption  or 
offering  up  to  God  by  fire,  when  on  the  altar,  in  contrast  with 
bringing  up  to  the  altar.  When  Jt/  to  is  not  used,  it  has 
practically  the  same  force  when  used  of  offerings— that  is, 
offering  to  God  ;  but  maps^i/v  Irri  ro  has  the  proper  peculiar  force 
of  bearing  them  as  a  victim  on  the  altar,  under  the  consuming 
fire  of  God,  not  of  bringing  up  to.  It  answers  to  n^uipn  MJdir, 
not  to  Jiikriv.  It  is  impossible  that  the  use  of  language  can  be 
made  plainer  by  the  facts  of  that  use. 

There  is  anotlier  word  for  which  it  is  used,  which  confirms 
this,  Thv,  hala  (Gen.  viii.  20  ;  xxii.  2  :  so  Exod.  xxiv.  5  ;  Lev. 
xiv.  19,  20) ;  where  the  reader  will  remark,  comparing  verse  13, 
that  in  both  cases,  of  the  sin  or  trespass  offering  and  the  burnt- 
offering,  they  are  killed  before  they  are  offered  in  this  sense  of 
the  word.  In  Christ  both  went  together  ;  He  died  on  the  cross. 
But  it  is  of  importance  to  remark  it  here,  because  it  shows  that 
hala,  as  well  as  hiJdir,  is  not  bearing  the  sins  up  to  the  altar, 
but  the  being  offered  (in  consuming  fire)  on  the  altar  to  God. 
The  word  is  used  in  some  passages  generally  as  a  burnt-offering, 
an  offering  made  by  fire,  the  sense  being  assumed  to  be  known  ; 
but  this  shows  the  strict  sense  is,  the  ascending  up  to  God  as 
a  sweet  savour  under  the  proving  and  consuming  fire,  not  the 
bringing  up  sin  to  the  altar.  And  this  is  so  true  that,  as  these 
burnt-offerings  were  of  a  sweet  savour,  so  no  offering  not  made 


258  THE  BEARING  OF  FIRST  PETER  ii.  24. 

by  fire  was  a  sweet  savour.  Compare  Leviticus  ii.  9  and  12, 
determining  tlie  use  of  this  word  in  the  most  positive  way.  They 
were  to  bring  it  uj)  (U"'ni5n  tahrivoo)  as  an  offering,  but  they 
w^ere  not  to  offer  it  (^T  yalicdoo)  as  a  sweet  savour,  very  justly 
as  to  the  sense  translated  "  burnt "  in  the  English.  It  was  not 
to  be  made  to  ascend  as  a  sweet  savour — that  is,  to  be  burnt  and 
mount  up  to  God  as  such. 

The  general  use  may  be  seen  in  ISTum.  xxviii.  2  and  Deut. 
xii.  13,  14  ;  chapter  xxvii.  6  is  a  proof  that  the  notion  of  It/  ro, 
i.e.,  trr'i  with  an  accusative  (see  below)  is  not  so  absolute,  but 
proves  that  avoian,  in  any  case,  does  not  mean  necessarily 
bringing  up  to,  for  here  it  is  used  with  the  genitive.  Judges  xiii. 
19,  again,  shows  distinctly  what  dmipiPuj  s-rr!  t6  means  (here  s-l 
"T/iv,  because  it  was  a  rock) ;  for  it  is  added,  "  For  it  came  to  pass, 
that  when  the  flame  went  up,"  m>^;-ilehaaloth,  "from  off"  the 
altar.  The  victim  was  offered  on  the  rock,  and  in  the  going  up 
of  the  flame.  That  was  what  hala  refers  to,  not  the  bringing  up 
to  the  altar. 

Additional  cases  will  be  found  in  Kings  and  Chronicles, 
David's  and  Solomon's  offerings  ;  but  it  is  only  repeating  similar 
.  cases,  which  confirm,  but  are  not  needed  to  prove,  the  point. 
The  words  for  which  dva<pi^iiv  s'rri  to  OuaiacTrjoiov  are  used  (namely, 
burning  or  causing  to  ascend  on  the  altar),  and  the  uniform  use 
of  them,  prove  distinctly  that  the  force  of  the  word  is  the  bear- 
ing under  consuming  fire  on  the  altar,  and  not  bringing  sins  up 
to  it.  I  may  quote  another  proof,  strongly  confirming  the  use 
of  this  word  in  2  Chron.  xxix.  27.  Verse  24,  the  victim  was 
killed ;  verse  27,  Ilezekiah  commands  it  to  be  offered,  dnviy-KiTv 
I'TTi  rh  dvffiuffryiiiov.  I  add,  on  this  occasion,  it  is  never  used  for 
bringing  or  bearing  sins  up  to  the  altar,  it  is  used  for  bi-inging 
victims  to  the  house ;  but  this  I  quote  because  there  it  is  not 
eV/.  The  sins  were  not  yet  upon  them  ;  they  were  the  spotless 
victims  that  were  to  become  sin-bearers,  and  sweet  savours  of 
offerings  made  by  fire. 

THE  BEARING  OF  FIRST  PETER  ii.  24.  259 

'Avap'ssiiv  l-l  rh  dvaiaarrjs/ov  is  never  used  for  brinirincr  or  bear- 
ing  sins  up  to  the  altar ;  what  it  is  used  for  has  been  fully 
shown.  But  the  supposition  that  S'^/  with  an  accusative  means 
actively  bringing  up  to,  and  then  rest,  is  a  mistake.  There  may 
be  grammatically  the  idea  by  implication  that  that  which  is 
It!  to  is  not  always  and  naturally  there  ;  but  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
it  does  mean  resting  on  a  place  or  thing  at  the  time  spoken  of. 
Thus,  Matt.  xiii.  2,  "  All  the  multitude  stood "  Jc/  rov  aJyiaXov. 
So  Matt.  xix.  28,  "  Ye  shall  sit  on  twelve  thrones,"  et;  8uidsxa 
6s6vo-jg.  Acts  X.  1/  j  xi.  11,  l-'-arriaav  Iri  rov  rraXuvu,  Jt/  rrjv  olx/'av. 
Winer's  "  Grammatik  "  (section  583)  may  be  seen  for  this  use 
and  the  use  of  Jt/  with  a  genitive  for  motion.  See  a  singular 
example  in  Lev.  iii.  5,  the  pieces  of  the  peace-offering  on  the 
buj^nt-offering,  It/  rd — on  the  wood,  It/  rd — on  the  fire,  It/  rov. 
This  may  be  from  the  fire  being  always  there  belonging  to  the 
altar,  whereas  the  wood  was  brought  there  :  oum  will  be  under- 
stood then  before  it.  In  many  cases,  I  have  no  doubt  that  the 
real  cause  of  the  accusative  is  this  ;  when  the  preposition  of  the 
compound  verb  implies  motion,  there  will  be  the  accusative, 
though  the  whole  sense  will  be  rest  I  do  not  think  you  would 
ever  have  iJmi  W!  ro.  With  e:piarr,iMi,  dva(p^s'j},  you  will  have  the 
accusative  ;  so  i'iarrjy.s  l-l  r6  in  contrast  with  Christ's  sitting  in  a 
boat  on  the  sea  ;  but  ]\Iark  risav  l-i  ylf^;.  But  this  is  grammar, 
and  I  pursue  it  no  farther. 

It  remains  only  to  adduce  the  cases  of  avucpspuv  in  the  sense  of 
bearing  or  offering.  AVe  have  first  Heb.  vii.  27,  "  who  needeth 
not  daily,  as  those  high  priests,  to  offer  up  sacrifice  ;  for  this  He 
did  once  when  He  offered  up  Himself"  Now,  here  it  is  perfectly 
certain  that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  victim  bearing  sins  up 
to  the  altar,  but  with  what  we  have  seen  to  be  its  usual  and 
uniform  sense — the  high  priest's  offering  it  on  the  altar,  where  it 
was  a  victim.  So,  also,  we  have  distinct  proof  that  it  is  no 
vicarious  life,  for  He  did  it  once  when  He  offered  up  Himself, 
and  it  was  for  sins.     When,  consequently,  it  may  have  a  more 

26o  THE  BEARING  OF  FIRST  PETER  ii.  24. 

general  meaning  of  giving  Himself  up  to  be  a  victim,  we  have 
the  word  used  for  that  in  Lev.,  Tr^&ffjts^ow,  Heb.  ix.  16.  Hence  we 
have  in  verse  28,  "once  offered  [T^offaisp^l'/s],  to  bear  [d^a^ji^s/v] 
the  sins  of  many."  Thus  He  was  once  offered,  and  offered  to 
bear  sins  as  thus  offered,  of  which  it  is  said  that  He  had  not  to 
offer  Himself  often,  for  then  He  must  often  have  suffered ;  but 
now  He  has  appeared  once  in  the  consummation  of  the  ages  to 
put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  Himself— that  is.  His  offering, 
His  suffering,  was  the  sacrifice  of  Himself.  His  being  born  was 
not  His  sacrifice.  He  offered  Himself— One  who  was  a  man 
though  by  the  eternal  Spirit,  or  there  could  be  no  offering. 
That  is,  He  was  a  man  before  He  offered  Himself,  His  own 
blessed  voluntary  act,  the  perfect  act  of  Christ,  though  in 
obedience,  and  Himself  already  the  spotless  Lamb.  He  was 
thus  the  Man,  the  spotless  One,  to  bear  the  sins  of  many.  This, 
there  can  be  no  doubt,  refers  to  Isa.  liii.  12. 

We  have,  further,  James  ii.  21,  "  When  he  had  offered  up 
Isaac  on  the  altar ; "  and  1  Peter  ii.  5,  "  Offer  up  spiritual  sacri- 
fices," which  give  no  proof,  save  that  the  last  shows  this,  that 
it  was  the  offering  up  to  God ;  which  is  very  important  in  this 
way,  that  it  shows  it  was  not  tlie  bringing  up  the  sins  when 
laid  on  the  victim's  head  to  the  altar.  The  offering  of  the 
victim  to  God  is  ';rco(jp=|w.  The  consumption  on  the  altar  was 
its  offering  up  as  a  sacrifice  to  God  ;  this  is  a^ajcspw.  The 
notion  of  bringing  up  a  living  victim  to  the  altar  is  unknown 
to  Scripture.  The  animal  was  slain  when  it  liad  been  offered 
{r:^(mviY^&iii),  slain  by  whom  it  might  be,  and  the  blood  sprinkled 
on  the  altar,  and  the  fat,  or  the  whole  victim,  burnt.  The  altar 
had  to  do  with  death  and  the  judgment  of  fire,  and  there  was 
the  sacrifice.  A  living  victim  bringing  up  sins  to  the  altar  is 
a  thought  foreign  and  contrary  to  Scripture.  When  the  victim 
had  been  presented,  and  the  hands  of  the  offerer  had  been  laid 
upon  it,  it  was  slain  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congre- 
gation.    Death  was  the  M-ay  sin  ^^•as  dealt  with  in  the  victim 

THE  BEARING  OF  FIRST  PETER  ii.  24.  261 

(we  know  Christ's  death  was  on  the  cross,  as  well  as  the  full 
drinking  of  the  cup  of  wrath) ;  the  thought  of  bringing  sins  up 
livingly,  as  if  He  offered  Himself  and  His  sins,  is  an  im- 
possibility. Xo  ;  He  offered  Himself,  and  bare  (dv^Ji-syxs)  oui 
sins,  when  offered  (^rrpoeiviyjii;)  as  a  dying  victim.  Death  was 
the  wages  of  sin. 

Thus  I  return  to  1  Peter  ii.  24  with  the  full  evidence  of 
Scripture  and  the  Greek  use  of  the  word,  all  the  scriptural 
order  of  sacrifice,  and  the  language  of  Scripture,  confirming  it, 
that  the  simple-hearted  reader  may  rest  in  all  confidence  in 
his  English  translation,  "  He  bare  our  sins  in  His  own  body  on 
the  tree."  The  word  "  bear  "  has  a  sacrificial  character ;  but  that 
no  Christian  reader  ever  doubted  in  this  passage. 

.  I  do  not  see,  I  confess,  how  any  scriptural  locution  could  be 
made  more  certain.  I  doubt  that  any  other  could  have  so 
ample  and  absolute  a  proof  of  its  actual  meaning,  and  refutation 
of  the  meaning  attempted  to  be  put  upon  it,  and  of  the  desired 
change  in  the  authorised  version. 



Hebrews  vii.  8. — There  is  really  no  solid  ground  for  denying 
that  Melchisedec  was  a  man,  as  simply  as  Abram,  Lot,  or  any 
other  personage  that  figures  in  the  description  of  Gen.  xiv. 

The  mystery  consists  not  in  the  person,  but  in  the  way  in 
which  the  Spirit  of  God  records  his  appearance  and  action  in 
the  scene,  so  as  to  make  of  him  a  suitable  type  of  the  Lord 
Jesus.  Thus  not  a  word  is  said  of  his  birth,  or  of  his  death  ; 
there  is  total  silence  as  to  his  ancestors ;  and  no  hint  is  given 
of  the  lapse  of  his  office,  or  of  any  successor.  The  Holy  Ghost, 
by  Paul,  argues  from  this  silence  (wliich  is  so  much  the  more 
striking  as  contrasted  with  the  well-known  pedigree  and  succes- 
sion of  Aaron),  and  thus  illustrates  Christ's  priesthood,  which 
had  really  those  features  that  are  here  shown  to  be  typically 
foreshadowed  in  ]\Ielchisedec.  For  instance,  while  verse  8  refers 
to  Melchisedec,  all  that  is  meant  of  him  is  that  the  testimony 
Scripture  renders  is  to  his  life,  not  to  his  death ;  whereas  it  fre- 
quently speaks  of  the  death  of  Aaron  and  his  sons.  The  same 
principle  applies  to  his  "  abiding  a  priest  continually." 

The  Bible  does  not  speak  of  his  institution,  nor  of  his  resig- 
nation. When  first  we  hear  of  Melchisedec  he  is  a  priest,  and 
as  such  we  leave  him;  no  son,  no  successor,  appears.  The  name, 
"  King  of  Eighteousness,"  the  place,  "  King  of  Salem ; "  his 
sacerdotal  office,  especially  in  connection  with  so  peculiar  a  title 
of  God,  "  priest  of  the  Most  High  God"  (which,  in  its  fuU  im- 
port, implies  the  possession,  de  facto  as  well  as  de  Jure,  of 


heaven  and  earth)  ;  the  circumstances  ("  met  Abram  returning 
from  the  slaughter  of  the  kings")  ;  the  character  of  his  actions 
("  blessed  him,"  and  not  merely  sacrifice  and  intercession), — are 
all  obviously  and  eminently  typical. 

There  is  scarcely  more  difficulty  as  to  Melchisedec  than  as 
to  Jethro,  priest  and  king  of  a  later  day  ;  though  of  course  the 
latter  could  not  furnish  so  apt  an  illustration,  in  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  as  the  former.  Both  were  real,  historical, 
and  not  merely  mystical,  persons. 

Two  remarks  may  be  made  towards  the  better  understand- 
ing of  this  chapter  and  epistle.  The  first  is,  that,  if  the  order  is 
that  of  Melchisedec,  the  exercise  is  that  of  Aaron,  as  is  most 
plain  in  Heb.  ix.  x.  The  second  is,  that  in  verses  18,  19  of  our 
chapter,  we  must  take  "  for  the  law  made  nothing  perfect " 
parenthetically,  and  suppose  an  ellipse  of  ymTui  (not  of  inXiluasv) 
with  ETeimyojyri.  In  other  words,  "  did"  ought  to  be  left  out  of 
the  authorised  version. 


May  I  be  permitted  to  express  the  following  objections  to 
Dean  Alford's  reasons,  and,  above  all,  to  his  conclusion,  that 
IMatthew  and  Levi  are  distinct  persons  ?  It  is  agreed  (1),  that 
"  the  three  narratives  relate  to  the  same  event ;"  and  (2),  that 
"  the  almost  general  consent  of  all  ages  has  supposed  the  two 
persons  to  be  the  same."  But,  so  far  from  allowing  that  his 
third  fact  is  almost  inexplicable,  I  can  only  admire,  with  Euse- 
bius,  the  humility  and  candour  of  Matthew,  who  gives  himself 
the  same  name  at  the  receipt  of  custom  by  which  he  was  after- 
wards known  as  an  apostle.  The  other  two  Evangelists  call 
him  Levi  as  a  publican,  and  Matthew  as  an  apostle,  which  is 
surely  a  very  intelligible  thing  on  the  supposition  that  he  bore 
both  names.  Thomas  is  called  Didymus  by  John  only  ;  and 
Thaddeus  (or  Lebbeus,  as  in  Matthew  and  :\rark)  is   called 


Judas  by  Luke  and  John,  not  to  speak  of  his  own  epistle,  with 
scarcely  a  note  of  identification.  As  to  the  fourth  point,  or 
"  early  tradition,"  that  which  separates  the  two  persons  is  as 
minute  as  it  is  suspicious.  Clement  of  Alexandria  quotes  the 
heretic  Heracleon  to  the  effect  that  Matthew,  Philip,  Thomas, 
Levi,  and  many  others,  had  not  suffered  martyrdom.  Is  this 
most  vague  statement  of  a  Gnostic — even  if  it  were  clear  and 
certain,  ^^'llicll  it  is  not,  that  he  means  by  this  Levi  the  Levi  of 
Mark  and  Luke  —  to  M-eigh  against  the  plain  and  strong  pre- 
sumptions of  1  and  2?  As  to  (5)  Origen's  testimony  [contra 
Gels,  i.),  it  seems  in  this  passage  to  distinguish  between  Matthew 
and,  not  Levi,  but  Aj/S?;?.  It  is  notorious  that,  elsewhere,  Origen 
identifies  Matthew  with  LevL  So  that  I  am  wholly  amazed  at  the 
Dean's  No.  (G)  :  "  It  certaiidy  would  hence  appear  as  if  the  pre- 
ponderance of  testimony  were  in  favour  of  the  distinctness  of  the 
two  persons."  His  notions  of  evidence  must  be  strange  indeed, 
to  set  the  assertion  of  Heracleon,  even  if  precise  instead  of  being 
loose,  and  the  statement  of  Origen,  if  confirmatory  instead  of 
being  adverse  elsewhere,  and,  as  I  think,  even  here,  above  his 
own  first  two  arguments  ;  especially  as  he  is  compelled  to  own 
liow  inexplicable  on  this  supposition  it  is  that  Matthew  should, 
in  his  account,  omit  all  mention  of  Levi.  In  fact,  such  a  theory, 
if  true,  would  turn  the  seeming  modesty  of  Matthew  into  a 
scarcely  honest  concealment  of  him  who  really  gave  the  great 
feast.  I  have  no  doubt  therefore,  that  the  common  view  which 
identifies  jMatthew  with  Levi,  as  two  names  of  the  same  indi- 
vidual, is  perfectly  sound,  and  the  only  tenable  one. 


]\Iark  xvi.  9,  ct  seqq. — Having  long  since  protested  against 
those  who  treat  this  passage  and  the  beginning  of  John  viii. 
with  sus^Dicion,  I  proceed  to  state  my  reasons,  passing  over  the 


disputed  place  in  John,  which  has  been  already  well  defended 
in  another  place. 

Even  Dean  Alford,  who  certainly  does  not  err  on  the  side 
of  credulity,  admits  that  the  authority  of  the  close  of  Mark 
is  hardly  to  be  doubted.  Eusebius,  and  the  Yat.  and  Sin.  MSS., 
omit  it ;  and  several  others  note  its  absence  in  certain  copies, 
but  generally  add,  that  it  appears  in  the  oldest  and  best.  All 
else  of  the  Greek  MSS.,  all  the  Evangelistaria,  all  the  Versions 
(except  the  Eoman  edition  of  the  Arabic),  and  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  earliest  and  most  trustworthy  Fathers,  are 
allowed  to  be  in  its  favour.  Lachmann,  in  spite  of  his  noto- 
rious tendency  to  follow  the  very  slips  of  the  most  ancient 
copies,  edits  the  entire  section  without  hesitation. 

In  his  notes  the  Dean  urges  that  the  passage  is  irreconcilable 
with  the  other  Gospels,  and  is  disconnected  with  what  goes 
before ;  that  no  less  than  seventeen  words  and  expressions  occur 
in  it  (some  of  them  repeatedly)  which  are  never  elsewhere  used 
by  jNIark,  whose  adherence  to  his  own  phrases  is  remarkable, 
and  that,  consequently,  the  internal  evidence  is  very  weighty 
against  his  authorship  ;  that  is,  he  believes  it  to  be  an  authentic 
addition  by  another  hand. 

Before  examining  these  criticisms,  I  must  object  to  a  reason- 
ing which  affirms  or  allows  that  to  be  scripture  which  is  irre- 
concilable with  other  scriptures-  If  its  authority  be  clear,  every 
believer  will  feel  that,  with  or  without  difficulties,  aU  must  be 
really  harmonioua 

But,  it  is  said,  the  diction  and  construction  differ  from  the 
rest  of  the  Gospel  Did  the  Dean  or  those  who  think  with  him 
adequately  weigh  the  new  and  extraordinary  circumstances 
which  had  to  be  recorded  ?  In  such  a  case  strange  words  and 
phrases  would  be  natural  if  Mark  wrote  (nor  does  he  by  any 
means  Avant  aVag  "kiydiiim  elsewhere)  ;  whereas,  another  hand, 
adding  to  Mark,  would  as  probably  have  copied  the  language 
and  manner  of  the  Evangelist. 


Uouirri  ffa/S.  (ver.  9)  is  alleged  to  be  imusnal.  Doubtless  ; 
yet,  of  the  two,  it  is  less  Hebraistic  than  rrig  /xiag  g.  (ver.  2),  and 
each  might  help  the  other  to  a  Gentile  or  a  Eoman  ear.  And, 
so  far  from  being  stumbled  by  the  way  Mary  Magdalene  is  men- 
tioned here,  there  seems  to  me  much  force  in  Jesus  appearing 
first  to  her  out  of  whom  He  had  cast  seven  devils.  "Who  so 
suitable  first  to  see  Him  and  hear  from  Himself  the  tidings  of 
His  resurrection,  who  through  death  annuls  him  who  had  the 
power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil  ?  As  to  the  absolute  use  of 
the  pronoun  in  10,  11,  is  it  not  enough  that  the  occasion  here 
required  what  was  needless  elsewhere  ? — If  croirj.  is  found  only 
in  10,  12,  and  15,  it  is  because  the  simple  word  best  expressed 
what  the  Holy  Ghost  designed  to  say,  whereas  elsewhere  the 
evangelist  employed  its  compounds  in  order  to  convey  the  more 
graphically  wliat  was  there  wanted.  Thus,  he  uses  e/Vtos.  eight 
times,  while  Matthew,  in  his  much  larger  account,  has  it  but 
once.  Is  this  the  least  ground  for  questioning  Matt.  xv.  17  ? 
So,  again,  Mark  has  Ta^a-ro^.  in  four  different  chapters,  IMatthew 
once  only  (xxvii.39),Luke  and  John  not  at  all. — Leaving  these 
trivial  points,  the  phrase  roTg  /xst'  airoD  is  to  me  an  argument  for 
rather  than  against  INIark's  authorship.  Compare  with  it  chap, 
i.  36  ;  iii.  14  ;  and  v.  40.  As  to  idsddri  6t'  aurl^g  and  its  differ- 
ence from  roTg  6.  aWov,  the  answer  is,  that  the  word  is  most 
appropriate  here  and  uncalled  for  in  other  places,  and  if  the 
difference  prove  anything  it  would  show  two  hands  instead  of 
one  supplementing  IMark's  narrative !  Thus,  for  instance,  the 
same  verb  occurs  but  once  in  all  the  epistles  of  Paul :  are  we, 
therefore,  to  suspect  Rom.  xv.?  Matthew  has  Qiuissu  only  twice  ; 
are  we  for  a  score  of  such  reasons  as  these  to  speculate  that 
"  another  hand"  added  Matt,  xxvii.  and  xxviii.  ? 

As  reiterated  mention  of  unbelief,  and  tlie  Lord's  upbraiding 

the  eleven  with  it,  what  more  instructive,  or  in  better  keeping 

with  the  scope  of  the  context  and  of  the  Gospel  ?    It  was  whole- 

•  some  for  those  who  were  about  to  preach  to  others  to  learn  what 


their  own  hearts  were,  and  the  Lord  in  His  own  ministry  sets 
them  right  before  announcing  their  great  commission.  Even  if  we 
only  look  at  the  word  americi,  it  occurs  in  ]\Iark  vi.  6  ;  ix.  24 
If  the  verb  is  found  only  in  ch.  xvi.  11,  16,  what  more  marvel- 
lous than  Luke's  having  it  only  in  his  last  chapter  (ver.  11,  41), 
and  never  once  using  the  substantive  eitlier  in  the  Gospel  or 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ? — It  is  true  that  iura  r,  and  leriiw 
are  found  in  no  other  passage  of  Mark,  but  his  customary  pre- 
cision may  be  one  reason  why  the  former  is  not  more  common  ; 
and  the  latter  occurs  once  only  in  Luke  and  John. — It  is  con- 
fessed that  70  ihaj.  IT.  rQ  ytricsi  is  in  Mark's  style.  The  fact  is, 
neither  of  the  later  Gospels  contains  the  noun  iliay.  and  Matthew 
always  qualifies  it  as  "  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom,"  or  "  this 
gospek;  '■  whereas,  whether  or  not  Mark  has  the  qualified 
phrases  in  i.  14  and  xiv.  9  (for  ]\[SS.  etc.  differ),  he  repeatedly 
has  "  the  Gospel"  elsewhere,  as  chap.  i.  15  ;  viii.  35  ;  x.  29  ; 
xiii.  10.  This,  then,  affords  no  slight  presumption  that  the 
passage  is  the  genuine  production  of  Mark,  as  well  as  authentic. 

TloLoaxoX.  in  17,  and  WaxoX.  in  20,  occur  nowhere  else  in  Mark, 
and  that  for  the  best  of  reasons  ;  the  accuracy  which  the  com- 
pounded forms  impart  was  demanded  here,  and  not  before,  where 
the  simple  form  sufficed.  And  this  is  the  less  surprising,  inas- 
much as  the  former  appears  only  in  Luke's  preface,  the  latter 
nowhere  else  as  far  as  the  four  evangelists  are  concerned. 

As  to  the  singularity  of  xaXSj  'i^oxjaiv,  what  simpler,  seeing  that 
this  promise  (as  well  as  that  about  the  new  tongues,  serpents,  etc.) 
is  revealed  here  only,  and  was  unquestionably  verified  in  the 
subsequent  history  ?  It  is  the  natural  converse  of  a  common 
Scriptural  designation  for  the  sick,  oi  xaxu;  \yj>vTi^,  and  if  the 
occurrence  of  aiiuoTog  should  be  here  objected  to,  the  reader  may 
find  it  twice  already  in  Llark  vi.,  while  Matthew  and  Paul  use 
it  each  only  once. 

Only  one  further  objection  remains  worth  noticing,  the  use 
of  y.jsiog  in  19,  20.     In  Mark  xi.  3,  I  suppose  it  is  equivalent  to 


Jehovah,  and  at  any  rate  I  would  not  press  this  as  in  point. 
But  the  absence  of  such  a  title  before  seems  to  me  a  beauty,  not 
a  blemish,  in  Mark,  whose  business  was  to  exhibit  the  service 
of  Jesus.  But  now  that  God  had  vindicated  His  rejected  Ser- 
vant by  the  resurrection,  now  that  He  had  made  Him  both 
"  Lord"  and  Christ,  what  more  natural,  or  even  necessary,  than 
that  the  same  Gospel  which  had  hitherto  traced  Him  as  the 
Servant,  Son  of  God,  should  make  Him  now  known  as  "  the 
Lord"  ?  But  this  is  not  all.  The  Lord  had  uttered  His  charcje 
to  those  who  were,  at  His  bidding,  to  replace  Him  as  servants, 
and  in  a  world-wide  sphere  ;  He  was  received  up  to  heaven,  and 
sat  on  the  right  hand  of  God.  Xow  it  was  Mark's  place,  and  only 
Mark's,  to  add  that,  while  they  went  forth  and  preached  eveiy- 
where,  the  Lord  was  working  with  them.  Jesus,  even  as  the 
Lord,  is,  if  I  may  so  say,  servant  stilL  Glorious  truth  !  And 
whose  hand  so  suited  to  record  it  as  his  who  proved  by  sad 
experience  how  hard  it  is  to  be  a  faithful  servant ;  but  who 
proved  also  that  the  grace  of  the  Lord  is  sufficient  to  restore 
and  strengthen  the  feeblest  ?  (Compare  Acts  xiii.  13  ;  xv.  38  ; 
Cob  iv.  10  ;  2  Tim.  iv.  11.) 


The  Apostle  Paul  tells  us  that  life  and  immortality 
{i.e.  incorruptibility,  d^dape!a)  were  brought  to  light  by  tlie 
Gospel.  These  truths  were  but  dimly  made  known  before, 
though  there  had  ever  been  sufficient  for  faith  to  lay  hold  of 
Thus,  the  very  first  book  of  the  Bible  shows  us  the  care  and 
solemnity  which  the  wandering  patriarchs  attached  to  their 
burial  (Gen.  xxiii.,  xxv.,  xxxv.,  xlvii.,  xlix.,  1.) ;  and  the  Apostle, 
in  writing  to  the  Hebrew  Christians,  affirms  that  it  was  by 
faith  (not  fasting,  customs,  or  superstition)  Joseph  gave  com- 
mandment concerning  his  bones.     He  believed  in  a  God  that 


raiseth  the  dead,  in  a  God  who  will  surely  raise  them  by  and  by, 
and  give  them  a  glorious  link  with  the  promised  land,  as  well 
as  with  the  city  which  hath  foundations — the  better  and  hea- 
venly country.  Again,  our  Lord  convicted  the  Sadducees  of 
not  knowing  the  Scriptures,  or  the  power  of  God  as  to  a  future 
resurrection  state,  and  a  present  living  to  God,  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob  ;  and  this  from  God's  words  to  that  ]\Ioses 
M'ho  is  said  by  Gibbon  to  have  omitted  the  doctrine,  but  who, 
on  the  contrary,  records  this  revelation  in  the  same  book  of 
Exodus  which  contains  the  law  of  Sinai.     (Comp.  Luke  xx.) 

I  fully  admit  that  there  was  a  considerable  measure  of 
obscurity  on  this,  as  on  many  other  truths,  till  He  came  who 
was  the  brightness  of  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  express  image 
of  His  substance.  But  this  was  in  perfect  harmony  with  the 
Levitical  or  Jewish  system,  in  which  the  veil  was  not  yet  rent, 
and  God  was  governing  a  nation  on  earth  as  the  vessel  of  His 
presence  and  testimony  among  the  Gentiles.  TJie  faith  of  His 
elect,  6f  course,  penetrated  much  further,  as  may  be  seen  in  Job 
xix. ;  Ps.  xvi.,  etc.  But  I  am  now  explaining  one  simple  and 
satisfactory  reason  why  we  should  not  expect  a  fuller  statement 
of  a  future  existence  in  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  because  the  main 
question  there  is  of  a  people  called  to  know  the  manifest  exer- 
cise of  righteous  government  on  the  part  of  a  God  who  dwelt, 
and  that  even  visibly,  in  their  inidst.  Individual  saints  saw 
nnich  more  all  through  ;  but  God's  government  of  Israel  on  the 
earth  is  the  grand  topic  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  true 
solution  of  this  seeming  difficulty,  which  is  really  in  perfect 
keeping  with  the  times,  place,  people,  and  circumstances  where 
it  occurs. 

THE  WOED  Wiu^vioi. 

Before  treating  of  the  force  and  usage  of  this  adjective,  it  is 
well  to  examine  briefly  into  ai<Jjv,  from  which  it  is  formed.     The 


earliest  application  of  the  substantive  in  Greek  writers  (as 
Homer,  Hesiod,  Pindar,  the  tragic  poets,  and  Herodotus)  is  in 
the  sense  of  a  man's  life,  or  lifetime.  In  the  later  history  of 
the  language  (not  to  speak  of  its  medical  application  to  "  the 
spinal  marrow  ")  it  denoted  a  long  period  of  time  (Aeschin. 
Axioch.  17),  M'hile  the  pliilosophers  employed  it  in  contradis- 
tinction to  x,ioMog  to  express  the  duration,  a/wc  of  eternal  and 
unchangeable  objects,  yj,<'mg  of  such  as  are  transient  and  cor- 
poreal. Hence  a/wv  was  used  in  the  ancient  philosophy  as  =  the 
infinite  and  immutable  eternity  of  God,  and  by  an  obvious  me- 
tonymy =  God  himself,  and  subordinate  spiritual  beings  who 
were  supposed  to  proceed  from  Him,  the  term  of  duration  being 
also  extended  to  those  invisible  agents  or  entities  themselves. 

Thus  Philo  JudaeuSSays,  h  aluvi  hi  otrz  <^a^iX^Xv6iv  oudiv  o'jT-c  /xiXXii 

dXXa  /j,6m  vparnzs.  This  is  important,  as  showing  that  in  Hel- 
lenistic Greek  authors  of  the  same  age  as  those  of  the  New 
Testament  the  M'ord  was  used  properly  and  specifically  to  set 
forth  eternity.  "  In  eternity  nothing  is  past  or  future,  but  only 
subsists."  Equally  plain  is  its  application  to  the  invisible  beings 
or  aeo7is  of  Oriental  philosophy,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  fol- 
lowing extract,  cited  by  Mosheim,  from  Arrian  : — ou  yao  i}/x,i  Aloov 
aXX  avdou'-rog,  f/^soo;  tuv  rrdvruv  ug  w^a  ri,u,i^ag,  IvffTrivai  (li  OiT  u;  Tr,v 
u)Pav  xal  rra^iXOiiv  ug  ci'suK  Excluding  the  imaginary  personal 
force,  nothing  can  be  clearer  than  its  use  in  the  time  and  lan- 
guage of  the  New  Testament  inspired  writers  to  represent  what 
is  immutable  and  eternal.  Aristotle,  I  may  add,  derives  it  from 
uJiv  uiv  (Dc  Coclo,  i.  11). 

Besides,  Avhen  qualified  by  words  M'liich  modify  its  sense,  it 
is  used  in  Scripture  for  the  continuous  course  of  a  given  system 
ruled  by  certain  principles,  as  in  Matt,  xii,  32  ;  xiii.  39,  40  ; 
xxiv.  3  ;  xxviii.  20  ;  or,  again,  in  a  moral  rather  than  in  a  dis- 
pensation al  sense,  as  in  Gal.  i.  4  ;  Ephes.  ii.  2. 

I  conclude,  then,  that  while  aiuDi  may  be  so  used  as  to  express 
the  continuous  existence  of  a  thing  which  from  its  nature  does 


not  last  for  ever  (as  Imman  life,  an  unbroken  age  or  dispensation, 
or  the  general  course  of  this  world),  its  proper  sense,  taken  by  it- 
self, is  to  express  eternity.  And  the  same  thing  is  true  of  alumg. 
It  is  used  in  certain  special  connections,  as  in  Piom.  xvi.  25  ;  2 
Tim.  i.  9  ;  and  Tit.  i.  2,  where  XS''^^'  modifies  its  force,  and  gives 
a  relative  rather  than  an  absolute  sense  ;  but  its  natural  mean- 
ing, unless  positively  restricted,  is  eternal  in  contrast  with  tem- 
porary. It  occurs  seventy-one  times  in  tlie  received  text  of  the 
New  Testament,  the  examination  of  which  need  leave  no  doubt 
on  the  believer's  mind.  Donnegan  gives  Philemon  15  as  excep- 
tional ;  but  he  is,  in  my  opinion,  mistaken. 


1  John  V.  8. — It  is  plain  that  "  the  Spirit "  {rh  ~n\i[j,a)  means 
the  Holy  Ghost.  He  only  is  truth  (ver.  6).  Allow  me  to  take  this 
opportunity  of  expressing  my  regret  that  Prof  Gaussen  {Plenary 
Inspiration,  pp.  192,  193)  should  venture  to  defend  the  text.  rec. 
of  the  two  preceding  verses,  and  in  doing  so  to  misstate,  of  course 
through  inadvertence,  the  evidence,  lie  ought  to  have  known 
that  the  alleged  testimonies  of  some  early  Latin  fathers  are  very 
questionable,  and  that  the  most  ancient  MSS.  of  the  Latin  Vulgate 
are  against  the  insertion  of  the  disputed  clause,  not  to  dwell  on 
the  fact  that  the  three  Greek  ]\ISS.  containing  it,  against  near 
150  which  omit  it,  are  not  older  than  tlie  fifteenth  or  sixteenth 
century ;  at  least,  if  the  Cod.  Xeapol.  belong  to  the  eleventh 
century,  the  reading  here  is  a  correction  made  500  years  later. 

As  to  the  two  grammatical  considerations  which  he  borrows 
from  Bishop  Middleton,  I  would  briefly  reply  : — 

1.  That  the  words  r^e/";  &/  txaor-jsoZ\/ric^  and  o'l  Ti-iT;  (verses  7,  8) 
are  no  insuperable  difficulty.  They  are  masculine,  it  is  true, 
while  the  words  to  which  they  relate  are  neuter ;  but  the  diffi- 
culty is  nearly  if  not  altogether  the  same,  if  the  passage 
remained  entire,  as  in  the  common  text.     If  in  that  the 


principle  of  attaction  is  used  to  justify  this  irregiilanty,  the 
principle  of  rational  concord  applies  to  the  correct  text ;  and 
the  more  especially,  as  t-o  cn-sJ/ia,  that  well-known  personal 
object  whose  power  wrought  in  the  saints,  is  the  first  of  the 
three  witnesses  who  are  specified  immediately  after.  They  are, 
as  it  were,  personified  as  witnesses,  and  the  gender  is  accommo- 
dated to  the  sense  rather  than  in  strict  grammatical  form. 

2.  The  next  objection  is  founded  on  the  article  being  coupled 
with  h,  as  if  it  necessarily  supposed  a  previous  mention,  which 
only  occurs  in  the  retrenched  clause.  But  this  is  so  far  from 
being  necessary  that,  even  if  h  were  rightly  read  in  verse  7,  the 
object  and  force  of  t-o  h  in  verse  8  is  wholly  different.  In  other 
words,  supposing  the  passage  in  question  to  be  spurious,  the 
anarthrous  form  would  be  an  error,  and  the  article  is  required 
{i.e.  TO  h)  in  verse  8  ;  for  the  idea  intended  is  not  the  nume- 
rical unity,  but  the  uniform  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  the  water, 
and  the  blood. 

It  may  be  added,  that  all  three,  I  believe,  of  these  MSS. 
which  contain  the  passage,  omit  the  article  before  crar^s,  Xrj^oc, 
and  ■n-y.  cly.,  which  I  venture  to  say  is  not  even  correct  Greek, 
but  just  such  phraseology  as  might  come  from  an  unlearned 
forger  translating  from  the  Latin.  It  was  Erasmus  who  supplied 
the  article  to  each  of  these  words,  with  no  other  warrant  than 
his  own  erudition. 


I  think  that  the  just  inference  from  a  comparison  of  the 
various  texts  cited  from  the  Peshito-Syriac  is,  that  this  venerable 
version  is  lax  in  representing  the  true  force  of  diflerent  phrases 
in  the  Greek  New  Testament  on  the  subject  of  the  resurrection  ; 
not  only  confounding  things  which  are  distinct,  but  adding,  in 
most  or  all  cases,  an  idea  not  suggested  by  the  original. 

As  to  the  Greek,  there  are  the  strongest  reasons  for  doubting 


that  i^a\a.(sra(5iz  ruv  vsx^Sv  is  an  inspired  expression — I  scarcely 
tliink  that  it  is  a  correct  one.  But  it  is  certain  that  A  B  (C  is 
here  defective)  D  E  read,  in  Phil.  iii.  11,  rr,v  l^amsrasiv  r^v  £x 
vsxpujv  (F  and  G  giving  ruv  h.,  ^-hich  seems  to  be  a  slip  for 
TTtv  6z),  while  only  two  uncial  MSS.  of  the  ninth  century,  viz. 
J  K,  read  ruv  without  tx.  Accordingly,  critics,  with  wholly 
different  systems  of  recension,  like  Scholz,  Lachmann,  and 
Tishchendorf,  reject  the  received  text  in  spite  of  Griesbach's 
adoption  of  it,  though  he  marked  the  right  reading  as  probable. 
It  is  not  surprising  that  J.  H.  has  failed  to  seize  the  exact 
point  of  s^avasraGiu;  Hx^'SJv.  The  phrase  is  purely  characteristic, 
and  hence  is  anarthrous.  The  preposition  is  not  omitted  before 
vsx^ojv  for  the  sake  of  euphony,  as  Mr.  Birks  supposes  in  a  recent 
volume ;  but  s^avaaraGsu;  in  Acts  xxvi.  23  and  Bom.  i.  4  indicates 
the  mode  or  condition  in  which  Jesus  should  show  light  to  Jew 
and  Gentile,  and  be  defined  as  Son  of  God  in  power  ;  wliile 
vsxfuiv  was  added,  it  seems  to  me,  as  a  complement,  to  denote  that 
it  was  a  resurrection  in  a  proper  or  strict  sense  (not  figuratively, 
as  in  Luke  ii.  and  elsewhere). 

It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  the  presence  or  absence  of  the 
preposition  immaterial.  The  truth  is  that,  while  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  or  of  the  just  {i.e.  those  who  are  Christ's),  like  that  of 
all  others,  is  or  may  be  styled  dvda-aei;  vsksmv,  never  is  the  resur- 
rection, of  the  unjust  designated  cadcraa/g  ix  vsxbmv — a  phrase 
restricted  to  those  who  rise  before  the  wicked.  In  other  words, 
"  the  resurrection  /ro7)i  the  dead"  (which  it  ought  to  be  in  Philip, 
iii.  11,  as  it  is  in  Luke  xx.  35,  where  the  expression  in  Greek 
is  rather  the  weaker  of  the  two)  is,  «  fortiori,  "  of  the  dead  " — 
but  the  converse  does  not  hold  ;  and  this  suffices  to  prove  their 
distinctness.  I  believe  that  the  reader  who  is  familiar  with  the 
Scriptures  will  the  most  readily  acquiesce  in  this  statement. 

Bev.  XX. — I  am  glad  to  perceive  that  a  too  common  misapplica- 
tion of  1  Thess.  iv.  16  is  disclaimed.      The  truth  of  two  distinct 



resurrections  does  not  require  such  pressure  of  texts  into 
its  service.  The  question  of  the  length  of  the  interval  M'as  of 
minor  importance  comparatively,  but  it  is  answered  in  that 
book  v^hich  admirably  and  appropriately  treats  of  it — the 
Apocalypse.  May  I  be  allowed  to  add  that  1  Cor.  xv.  23  has  just 
as  little  to  say  to  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked  as  the  passage 
in  1  Thess.  iv.  Nor  has  any  person  the  slightest  authority  from 
Scripture  to  connect  what  he  calls  the  "  trumpet  blast "  with 
any  save  the  righteous.  None  else  are  considered  in  either 
Scripture.  "  The  end,"  in  1  Cor.  xv.  does  not  mean  the  wicked 
who  are  supposed  to  rise  then,  but  the  close  of  all  God's  dis- 
pensational  dealings,  even  of  "  the  kingdom,"  viewed  from  that 
point,  which  has  been  given  up  ;  and  tlmt  clearly  supposes  all 
judgment  of  quick  and  dead  to  be  over.  In  other  words,  "  the 
end"  is  after  the  wicked  dead  have  been  raised  and  judged. 

As  to  the  alleged  distinction  between  wga  In  and  h  fi,  I  do 
not  think  it  has  been  applied  aright  in  setting  it  against  the  plain 
statement  in  Eev,  xx.  of  the  period  that  transpires  between  the 
resurrection  of  the  blessed  and  that  of  the  rest  of  the  dead.  It 
was  as  uncalled  for  in  the  Gospel  as  it  was  in  harmony  with  the 
Revelation  of  John,  to  enter  into  chronological  times  and 
seasons.  Yet  the  Lord  carefully  guards  against  our  inferring  a 
common  or  general  resurrection.  All  are  to  hear  His  voice  and 
to  rise  ;  but  we  have  as  distinctly  as  possible  a  resurrection  of 
life  and  a  resurrection  of  judgment,  as  in  Eev.  xx.  They  were 
not  to  marvel  if  He  quickened  souls  ;  for,  at  another  epoch.  He 
would  be  in  such  manifestation  of  power  that  He  would  raise 
bodies  ;  but  the  Gospel  decides  nothing  as  to  the  particular 
points  in  the  ^pa  when  good  and  bad  should  rise,  the  Apocalypse 
does.  It  seems  to  me  not  unlikely  that  the  true  reason  why 
not  on  but  h  ^  is  used  in  John  v.  28,  is  to  distinguish  an  epoch 
wdiere  the  action  is  immediate  (as  in  John  iv.  52,  53  also)  from 
one  wherein  it  is  continuous  or  sustained  (as  in  John  iv.  21,  23, 
and  xvi.  25).     This,  however,  in  no  way  clashes  with  the  fact  ot 


there  being  two  distinct  and  contrasted  resurrections,  nor  forbids 
our  believing  that  one  act  is  at  the  beginning,  the  other  at  the 
end  of  this  wf  a,  while  both  are  immediate,  not  prolonged. 


It  admits  of  the  clearest  possible  internal  proof — of  course 
of  an  accumulative  kind — that  the  Spirit  of  God  employed 
Matthew  to  present  the  Lord  Jesus  as  "  the  Son  of  David,  the 
Son  of  Abraham,"  i.e.  in  descent  from  the  two  leading  points  of 
Jewish  glory  and  promise.  Mark  is  occupied  with  the  "  begin- 
ning of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,"  and  thus 
naturally  details  the  ministry,  in  all  its  varied  circumstances, 
of  OQC  who  was  the  ready,  patient,  and  withal  powerful  servant 
of  all  the  need  that  surrounded  Him — of  one  whose  dignity  as 
the  Son  of  God  "  could  not  be  hid"  in  his  least  work  here  below. 
Next,  the  genealogy  of  Luke  traces  Jesus  up  to  Adam,  that  is, 
as  connected  with  the  whole  race.  Gentiles  no  less  than  Jews, 
as  Son  of  man  and  not  merely  tlie  Messiah.  These  observations 
help  to  explain  the  comparatively  large  use  of  the  Jewish 
prophets  by  the  first  of  the  Evangelists,  while  Luke,  with  equal 
propriety,  depicts  "  that  holy  thing,"  born  of  the  Virgin,  who 
increased  in  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in  favour  with  God  and 
man  ;  and  Mark,  just  as  admirably,  omits  all  notice  of  Christ's 
parentage,  His  birth,  His  childhood,  etc.,  and  commences  at 
once  with  the  ministry  of  His  forerunner  and  of  Himself.  Last 
of  all,  John  gives  a  portrait  of  the  Lord,  in  a  point  of  view 
higher  than  the  others,  as  the  "Word  made  flesh,  who  in  the 
beginning  was  with  God  and  was  God,  the  true  light,  full  of 
grace  and  truth.  For  this  reason,  as  well  as  because  the  Jews 
are  here  regarded  as  merged  in  the  universal  darkness  and 
death,  no  genealogy  is  given  :  His  person  and  Divine  relation- 
ship, not  His  human  one,  is  the  subject.  It  is  not  that  the 
same  truths  are  not  recognised  everywhere  ;  for  Jesus  is  owned 


as  Son  of  God  in  Matthew,  and  as  Son  of  David  in  John. 
Enough  is  afforded  by  every  Evangelist  to  show  an  unbiassed 
soul,  that  He,  whom  they  all  described,  was  God  manifested  in 
the  flesh.  Nevertheless  it  remains  true,  that  each  has  his  own 
proper  and  peculiar  line  ;  that  what  has  been  already  stated  is 
the  grand  characteristic  testimony  of  those  inspired  writers  ; 
and  that  in  this  lies  the  real  key,  not  only  to  the  differences  of 
language  in  what  are  called  parallel  passages,  but  also,  as  I 
believe,  to  whatever  is  inserted  or  omitted  in  the  several  Gos- 
pels. The  Holy  Ghost  may  allude  to  other  glories  of  the  Lord, 
in  a  biography  which  is  specially  devoted  to  trace  Him  in  one 
very  prominent  character  ;  and  with  perfect  wisdom  He  has 
thereby  cut  off  the  objection  that  the  writers  differed  in  their 
comparative  estimate  of  the  Lord.  Not  one  of  the  Gospels,  for 
instance,  fails  to  notice  His  inflexible  obedience,  whatever  the 
office  sustained,  whatever  the  light  in  which  He  was  regarded. 
He  could  not  but  shine  in  this  moral  perfectness  ;  yet  even  here 
the  attentive  reader  may  perceive  that  it  is  pre-eminently  Luke, 
whose  business  it  was  to  illustrate  His  real  and  untainted 
humanity,  as  the  obedient  "  Second  Man,"  the  Lord  from  heaven, 
in  contrast  with  the  first  man,  rebellious  Adam  :  in  a  word,  as 
the  woman's  Seed,  rather  than,  as  in  ]\Iatthew,  the  true  Messiah 
and  rejected  Emmanuel. 

It  is  familiarly  known  that  Matthew  and  Luke  furnish  t^vo 
distinct  pedigrees  from  David,  the  latter  Nathan's  line,  the  for- 
mer Solomon's,  which  was  the  elder,  and  of  course,  Jewishly, 
the  more  important  branch.  As  was  usual  in  legal  genealogies, 
the  line  of  the  husband  is  given  by  ]\Iattliew,  who  for  the  same 
reason  records  tlie  supernatural  dreams  of  Joseph  ;  whereas  in 
Luke  ]\Liry  is  everywhere  the  more  prominent  personage  of 
the  two,  and  accordingly,  as  showing  the  source  of  His  human 
nature,  the  genealogy  here  given  is  that  of  His  mother.  Hence, 
it  is  said  by  Luke,  w  vi6c,  u;  ivofj,i^iTo,  raZ  'luar,!p,  x.  r.  X.,  that  is, 
reputedly,  or  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  He  was  son  of  Joseph,  but 


in  fact,  Mary's,  as  had  been  carefully  shown  in  the  preceding 
chapters.  Thus,  it  is  plain  that  there  is  nothing  contradictory 
in  these  various  accounts  ;  nay,  that  each  is  as  and  where  it 
ought  to  be,  and  is  found  in  that  Gospel  whose  character 
demands  it,  and  there  only.  The  Messianic  descent  of  ]\Iatthew 
would  be  out  of  place  in  Luke,  as  the  last  Adam  genealogy  of 
Luke  would  not  suit  the  historian  who  speaks  emphatically  of 
the  Messiah,  His  relation  to  the  Jews,  His  rejection,  and  con- 
sequently the  transition  to  a  new  dispensation,  which  was  to  go 
on  in  mystery  and  patience,  before  the  Son  of  man  returns  to 
establish  it  in  manifestation  and  power  ;  of  which  last  phase  the 
prophets  had  treated.  Luke,  on  the  other  hand,  was  inspired 
to  develope  the  great  principles  of  God's  grace  towards  man,  and 
the  broader  moral  grounds  which  they  assume  ;  and  this  is  so 
true  that,  in  the  body  of  his  Gospel,  events  are  grouped  in  their 
moral  connections,  not  in  their  chronological  sequence,  save 
where  this  is  required  for  the  truth  of  the  narrative. 


1  Corinthians  xv.  29. — Some  find  great  difficulty  in  un- 
derstanding this  scripture.  But  I  rather  see  no  reason  for 
doubting  that  an  old  and  common  interpretation  is  the  best,  as 
it  certainly  flows  from  the  obvious  construction,  and  a  very 
ordinary  meaning  of  the  words  employed.  After  the  positive 
revelation  in  verses  20-28,  the  apostle  resumes  his  argument 
with  £/'  o/.w;  Mixgo]  oux.  \y.  which  he  had  pressed  in  verse  IG,  with 
its  consequences  as  to  Christ,  themselves,  and  the  dead.  Here 
the  apostle  repeats  the  phrase  of  that  verse,  in  view,  first,  of 
those  who  take  the  place  of  those  who  were  fallen  asleep  in 
Christ ;  and,  secondly,  of  a  lot  in  this  life  most  miserable,  if  hope 
be  there  only.  Compare  29  with  18  and  30  with  19.  To  enter 
the  company  of  such,  if  the  dead  rise  not,  would  be  folly  indeed. 
Every  proper  lexicon  or  grammar  w^ill  show  to  those  who  may 


not  be  aware  already,  that  t/-jf  has  regularly  and  not  infrequently 
the  sense  "  in  the  place  or  stead  of,"  which  here,  in  my  opinion, 
accords  best  with  the  previous  context,  the  general  reasoning, 
and  the  actual  phraseology  of  this  particular  verse,  hhrm  is  of 
course  to  be  read  at  the  end  rather  than  rm  vv/.ouv,  as  having  the 
largest  support  of  the  best  authorities,  MSS.  versions  and  fathers, 
A  question  might  arise,  as  it  has  arisen,  whether  the  first  note  of 
interrogation  ought  to  follow  /Sacrr.  or  I7. ;  but  the  substantial 
sense  remains  tlie  same. 


Matthew  v.  48  ;  1  John  iii.  9.— The  first  of  tliese  texts  has 
no  bearing  whatever  on  the  question  of  perfection  in  the  flesh. 
It  is  the  revelation  of  the  name  of  our  Father  which  is  in 
heaven,  and  the  character  practically  which  suits  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  The  mere  Jew  was  responsible  to  render  testimony 
to  the  righteousness  of  Jehovah  ;  the  believer  now  is  responsible 
to  show  forth  the  grace  of  "  our  Father."  Vengeance  on  the 
Canaanites  was  then  a  righteous  thing  ;  now  "  if,  when  ye  do 
well  and  suffer  for  it,  ye  take  it  patiently,  this  is  acceptable  with 
God."  The  children  are  bound  to  sustain  the  family  character, 
"  that  ye  may  be  the  children  of  your  father  which  is  in  heaven, 
for  He  maketh  His  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good,  and 
sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust.  .  .  .  Be  ye  therefore 
perfect,  even  as  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  is  perfect." 
Other  Scriptures  prove,  if  proof  were  needed,  that  sin  still  abides 
in  the  saint  here  below,  however  bound  he  is  to  disallow  and 
mortify  it.  This  text  simply  exhorts  us  to  imitate  our  Father's 
grace,  even  to  tliose  who  deserve  His  judgment. 

The  other  Scripture  (1  John  iii.  9)  regards  the  child  of  God 
in  that  point  which  distinguishes  him  from  the  world,  in  the 
possession  of  a  life  from  God  which  is  absolutely  sinless.  No 
intelligent  Christian  \yi]l  therefore  forget  that  the  flesh  is  still 
in  us,  though  we  are  no  louger  in  the  flesh,  but  in  tlie  Spirit. 



Matthew  xxv.  40. — I  think  that  it  is  clear  and  certain  that 
those  whom  "  the  King "  designates  as  His  brethren  here,  are 
a  distinct  class  from  the  sheep.  It  is  not  denied  that  all  God's 
saints  are,  or  may  be,  viewed  as  "  sheep."  All  that  is  now  con- 
tended for  is,  that  in  this  scene  we  have  certain  godly  Gentiles 
blessed  and  inheriting  the  kingdom  prepared  for  them  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  but  at  the  same  time  distinguished 
from  others  styled  the  King's  brethren,  who  had  previously  put 
these  sheep  to  the  test,  and  been  the  occasion  of  showing  tlieir 
difference  from  the  goats,  or  the  unbelieving  Gentiles,  who  had 
dishonoured  the  King  in  His  messengers.  I  add  that  the  scene 
is  a,^  millennial  one  ;  not  the  gathering  of  tlie  saints  risen  or 
changed  before  the  millennium  ;  not  the  judgment  of  the  dead 
after  it,  but  a  scene  on  earth  of  living  nations  dealt  with  accord- 
ing to  their  reception  or  rejection  of  the  King's  brethren  just 
before  this  judgment  (Matt.  xxiv.  14). 


Zechariah  xiv.  5. — It  is  evident,  I  think,  that  Azal  is  the 
name  of  a  place,  joined,  as  its  origin  indicates,  or  near,  to  the 
Mount  of  Olives.  As  it  never  occurs  elsewhere  in  the  Bible  as 
a  proper  name,  save  of  a  person,  it  is  not  surprising  that  com- 
mentators have  differed  as  to  its  exact  locality,  some  placing  it 
at  the  eastern,  others,  as  Henderson,  at  the  western  extremity, 
very  close  to  one  of  the  gates  on  the  east  side  of  Jerusalem. 

The  meaning  I  believe  to  be  that  Jehovah,  standing  in  that  day 
on  the  mount  (which  is  most  precisely  described,  as  if  to  cut  off 
the  idea  of  mere  "beautiful  poetical  imagery")  shall  cleave  it 
in  twain  from  west  to  east,  half  receding  towards  the  north,  and 
half  towards  the  south  ;  and  that,  if  He  fights  with  the  nations 
which  shall  be  then  gathered  against  Jerusalem  to  battle,  the 


Jews  are  to  flee  to  the  valley  of  His  mountains  (so  called 
because  thus  wonderfully  cloven),  for  the  valley  reaches  to 
Azal,  whether  it  be  considered  as  the  terminus  a  quo  or  ad  quem. 
The  earthquake  referred  to  is  the  same  signal  one  from  which 
Amos  dates  his  prophecy.  The  Vulgate,  it  may  be  observed, 
takes  !?V?  as  an  appellative,  and  gives  us  "  usque  ad  proximum ;" 
the  Septuagint  agrees  with  the  authorised  and  most  other  ver- 
sions as  to  this,  but  apparently  follows  the  erroneous  reading 
CDripjl  (which  is  actually  that  of  four  of  De  Eossi's  MSS.  not  to 
speak  of  other  authorities),  instead  of  DripJl,  ie,  the  Septuagint 
gives  (p^ayj'hairai  n  pagay'^,  x.  r.  X.  (the  valley  shall  be  stopped  up, 
etc.)  in  verse  5,  which  is  evidently  contrary  to  the  best  readings, 
and  to  the  plain  force  of  the  context.  It  is  scarcely  needful  to 
say  that  this  prophecy  has  never  been  fulfilled.  Even  suppos- 
ing that  the  Eoman  army  under  Titus  could  be  meant,  as  Dr. 
Henderson  affirms,  by  "  all  the  nations,"  it  seems  extraordinary 
indeed  that  so  sensible  a  person  could  see  the  rest  of  verse  2 
accomplished  there.  I  should  have  supposed  that  the  im- 
pression leit  on  the  mind  by  the  accounts  of  Josephus  or  any 
one  else  was  rather  that  the  city  was  taken,  and  that  if  half  the 
people  went  into  captivity,  the  rest  were  cut  off  from  the  city. 

But  if  there  could  be  reasonable  doubt  as  to  that  verse,  can 
it  be  pretended  that  at  that  time  (and  it  is  all  closely  linked  in 
the  prophecy;  Jehovah  fought  with  those  nations,  and  that  His 
feet  stood  in  that  day  on  Olivet,  and  that  the  mount  was  split 
in  the  midst  ?  It  is  a  weak  and  impotent  conclusion  that  the 
flight  to  Pella,  long  before  the  city  was  taken  by  the  Eomans, 
is  what  is  here  so  sublimely  but  withal  most  graphically  pre- 
dicted. When  we  take  the  latter  part  of  the  chapter  into  the 
account,  the  hypothesis  is  beyond  measure  harsh  and  contrary 
'■0  facts. 


It  is  only  needful  to  add  that  the  sense  seems  to  require  us 
.      |,  v,one  paragraph  with  "  the  days  of  Uzziah,  King  of  Judah," 

in  us 

°    Tin  a  new  one  with  "  And  Jehovah  my  God  shall  come 
I,  thou^  .  *' 


[and]  all  the  holy  ones  "o-ith  thee."  The  prophet  suddenly 
addresses  the  Lord,  and  then  proceeds  with  that  day  from  a 
point  of  view  which  differs  altogether  from  the  preceding 
section,  because  it  introduces  His  relationship  permanently 
established  with  the  whole  earth,  consequent  on  His  vengeance 
upon  the  nations. 


Matthew  xL  2,  3. — I  apprehend  that  one  reason  which  has 
hindered  many  from  seeing  the  failure  of  John  Baptist  is,  that 
we  are  all  slow  in  learning  and  owning  our  own  weakness.  The 
heart  that  has  proved  its  own  faltering  in  devotedness  and 
testimony  for  Christ,  will  readily  understand  how  John,  as 
well  as  his  disciples,  may  have  been  cast  down,  when  the  herald 
of  Messiah  was  himself  bound  and  gone  to  prison  in  sorrow, 
instead  of  the  ransomed  of  the  Lord  coming  to  Zion  with  songs 
and  everlasting  joy  upon  their  heads.  But  if  the  Lord  notices 
indirectly,  in  verse  6,  the  stumbUng  of  His  tried  servant  (or 
certainly  the  blessedness  of  him  who  is  not  stumbled).  He  turns 
round  to  the  multitude  and  graciously  indicates  the  more  than 
prophet  place  of  John.  I  do  not  believe  that  verse  11  contains 
the  least  reflection  on  the  Baptist,  any  more  than  verse  13  does 
on  all  the  prophets.  On  the  contraiy,  the  former  verse  asserts 
for  him  the  most  distinguished  place  possible  in  the  old 
economy  ;  while  it  discloses  at  the  same  time  th^  surpassing 
glory  which  attaches  to  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  {i.e. 
the  new  dispensation,  which  was  then  preached,  but  only  set 
up  when  the  Lord,  rejected  by  the  earth,  took  his  seat  in  heaven). 

I  am  aware  that  some  shrink  from  what  appears  such  strange 
and  undue  exaltation  of  the  Xew  Testament  saints  ;  but  our 
wisdom  is  to  accept  whatever  God  gives  in  sovereign  love.  It 
is  His  to  order  all  for  the  glory  of  His  Son,  while  Satan  would 
cheat  us  of  His  blessings  through  a  spurious  humility,  which  is 
really  unbelief;    especially   as   the   privileges    given  are  the 


measure  of  responsibility.      If  we  lose  sight  of  what  God  in- 
tends, we  shall  proportionately  fail  in  our  walk  and  worship. 


2  Thessalonians  ii.  6-8. — It  appears  to  me  that  the  Spirit 
here  treats  of  the  restraining  influence  and  person  with  a  certain 
studied  obscurity,  and  that,  if  wise,  we  should  not  too  hastily 
form  conclusions.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  epistle 
was  an  early  one,  written  to  young  converts  who  had  enjoyed 
the  apostle's  oral  teaching  on  the  subject  of  the  kingdom  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  (cf.  Acts  xvii.  7,  with  2  Thess.  i.),  as  well  as  on 
the  matter  in  question  (ver.  5).  Further,  if  we  attach  any  value 
to  the  idea,  so  prevalent  in  the  early  church,  that  the  Eoman 
empire  was  "  the  letter,"  or  "  what  withheld,"  it  is  natural  that 
the  intimation  should  be  but  dim,  especially  if  previously  taught 
by  the  apostle.  If  the  hindrance  consisted  in  the  presence  and 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  whether  personally  in  the  church  or 
governmentally  in  the  world,  one  can  understand  how  nothing 
more  is  here  given  than  the  assurance  of  a  restraint  up  to  a 
certain  point.  Thus,  while  the  powers  that  be  (whatever  the 
form)  are  ordained  of  God,  there  is  a  time  coming,  as  we  know 
from  Eev.  xi.-xiii.,  when  this  shall  cease,  and  the  beast  shall  rise 
out  of  the  bottomless  pit  {i.e.  be  resuscitated  by  diabolic  agency 
in  an  exceptional  and  frightful  way),  when  the  dragon  {i.e.  Satan) 
gives  him  his  power  and  his  throne  and  great  authority.  The 
withholder  will  have  then  disappeared,  or  at  least  cease  to  act 
as  such.  The  apostasy  will  have  come,  and  the  man  of  sin  be 
revealed  in  the  fullest  way :  for  I  do  not  deny  a  partial  applica- 
tion of  the  prophecy  to  the  papacy,  while  looking  for  a  far  more 
complete  development  of  the  evil.  The  revelation  of  tlie  law- 
less one,  who  is  clearly,  I  think,  "  the  king  "  of  Daniel  xi.  36- 
40,  will  be  characterised  by  an  unprecedented  energy  of  Satan 
"  with  all  power,  and  signs,  and  lying  wonders,"  similar  language 


as  St.  Peter  uses  of  Jesus,  "  a  man  approved  of  God  "  by  miracles, 
and  wonders,  and  signs  which  God  did  by  him.  It  is  quite 
a  mistake  to  suppose  that  verse  6  will  bear  "and  ye  know 
what  is  now  restraining  ;"  for  vZv  is  here  a  particle  of  transition, 
and  fairly  enough  given  in  the  English  version.  No  more  is 
implied  than  their  general  knowledge  that  there  was  a  some  one 
or  thing  which  restrained ;  but  6  xarj;)^wi'  a^r/  in  verse  7  does 
mean  that  he  restrains  now.  Next,  1%  iiUm  is  correctly  rendered 
"  out  of  the  way."  It  is  its  regular  known  force  in  sacred  and 
profane  authors,  whether  connected  or  not  with  verbs  implying 
separation,  as  any  good  lexicon  may  satisfy  any  one.  Thus,  in 
l-K  Tou  iMsaou  xadi^sgdai  (Herod,  iii.  83)  the  verb  has  nothing  to  do 
with  that  sense,  which  the  phrase  does  carry.  See  also  Dem. 
323,  327  (Eeiske).  Accordingly  the  authorised  version  rightly 
connects  lug  !■/.  /m.  y.  with  0  xar£;!(;;wi/,  while  the  beginning  of  verse 
8  answers  to  the  beginning  of  the  7th.  If  the  phrase  'i^g  l-/.  /x.  7. 
applied  to  "  the  wicked  one,"  and  meant  "  till  he  appears,"  the 
force  of  Ka)  TOTS  dmx.  would  be  weakened  and  useless. 


Allow  me  to  suggest  that  the  common  thought  as  to  this 
phrase  in  Scripture  is  incorrect.  It  is  not  true  that  "  full  assur- 
ance of  understanding "  is  the  first  of  the  three  mentioned 
by  St.  Paul,  but  the  last  and  highest.  "Full  assurance  of 
faith  "  is  the  first :  it  rests  upon  the  blessed  work  and  sacrifice 
of  Christ  as  a  finished  and  accepted  thing  (Heb.  x.)  The  next 
is  "full  assurance  of  hope,"  which  looks  for  and  anticipates  with 
joy  the  time  of  glory  and  the  inheritance  of  the  promises  (Heb. 
vi.)  "Full  assurance  of  understanding"  supposes  intelligence 
of  God's  ways  in  their  height  and  depth,  as  developed  in  the 
mystery  of  Christ's  heavenly  glory,  or,  as  it  is  said,  "to  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  mystery  of  God."  How  many  there  are 
who  are  perfectly  clear  as  to  their  acceptance,  and  who  enjoy 


the  hope  of  Christ's  return  and  reign,  and  yet  are  most  in- 
distinct and  iininstructed  in  "the  mystery,"  as  taught  in 
Ephesians  and  Colossians.  So  utterly  false  is  it  that  "the  full 
assurance  of  understanding,"  spoken  of  in  CoL  ii.  gives  birth  to 
the  other  two. 


Joshua  XX.  6. — The  true  application  of  the  type  is,  I  believe, 
not  to  departed  spirits,  but  to  the  Jews,  who  are  providentially 
kept  of  God,  but  kept  withal  out  of  their  inheritance,  until  the 
close  of  the  High-priesthood  which  Christ  is  now  exercising  in 
heaven.  He  will  then  come  out  and  bless  the  people  of  Israel, 
to  whom  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  appear.  They  knew  not 
what  they  did  when  they  smote  and  killed  the  Prince  of  Life. 
In  the  city  of  refuge  they  remain  till  the  close  of  Christ's 
(heavenly)  priesthood,  after  which  they  are  to  return  to  the 
land  of  their  possession.     See  Numb.  xxxv.  25,  28. 


The  apostle  had  been  showing  how  little  profit  there  is  in 
bodily  exercise,  whereas  godliness  is  valuable  for  all  things, 
having  the  promise  of  the  life  that  now  is,  and  of  that  which  is 
to  come.  This  he  pronounces  a  faithful  word,  and  worthy  of  all 
acceptation  :  the  reason  appears  in  our  verse.  For  therefore  we 
both  labour  and  suffer  reproach  (painful  as  it  may  be  for  the 
present),  because  our  settled  hope  is  in  the  living  God,  who  is 
the  preserver  of  all  men,  specially  of  the  faithful.  The  question 
here  is  of  His  preserving  care,  and  not  of  salvation  only ;  and 
this  the  apostle  shows  to  be  most  true  of  those  who  are  most 
tried  by  reason  of  their  faithfulness.     1  Tim.  iv. 



2  Timothy  i.  10.— In  this  scripture  our  Saviour  is  repre- 
sented as  having  abolished  death  (here  personified,  as  is  sin  in 
Piom.  vii.)  Of  course  this  does  not  mean  that  men  no  lon<Ter 
die  a3  a  fact,  but  that  He  has  annulled  the  title  of  death  as 
regards  His  own  ;  as  in  Heb.  ii.  it  is  declared  He  took  part  of 
flesh  and  blood,  "that,  through  death,  he  might  destroy 
{7.aTaoyi]6ri,  the  Same  word  as  here)  him  that  had  the  power  of 
death,  that  is,  the  devil."  But  He  has  done  more  :  He  has 
brought  to  light  life  and  incorruption  (the  body  being  in  ques- 
tion, and  not  the  soul  only)  through  the  gospel.  It  is  not  said 
nor  meant  that  either  was  absolutely  hidden,  for  enough  was 
suggested  for  the  faith  of  God's  elect  to  show  that  resurrection 
and  heaven  were  in  His  mind,  and  not  earthly  blessing  only, 
as  Matt.  xxii.  23-33,  and  Heb.  xi.  abundantly  prove.  Never- 
theless, under  the  law,  these  were  obscure  subjects,  because  the 
ordinary  and  normal  application  of  the  law  was  found  in  pre- 
sent visible  rewards  or  punishments  from  a  God  who  dwelt 
between  the  cherubim  on  earth.  The  gospel  does  not  speak  of 
life  and  incorruptibility  as  utterly  unknown  before  :  on  the 
contrary,  it  supposes  them  to  have  been  partially  seen  gleaming 
here  and  there  through  the  darkness ;  whereas  now  they  stand 
out  in  bold  relief,  the  grand  theme  of  evangelic  testimony,  as 
viewed  in  the  person  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  "  Which  thing,"  as  St. 
John  says,  "  is  true  in  Him  and  in  you,  because  the  darkness  is 
passing,  and  tlie  true  light  now  shineth." 


2  Peter  iii.  10.— I  think  it  will  be  found  that,  while  all  three 
Scriptures  are  equally  inspired,  and  tlierefore  certainly  and 
unmixedly  true,  our  text  takes  a  middle  place,  as  to  measure  of 
light  given,  between  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (Ixv.  Ixvi.,  to  which 


the  reference  is  clear)  and  the  Apocalypse.  And  this  exactly 
accords  with  its  season  historically.  The  Apostle  of  the  Cir- 
cumcision adds  to  the  light  we  might  have  gathered  from  the 
Jewish  prophet ;  for  he  discloses  new  heavens  and  new  earth, 
not  merely  in  a  moral  and  incipient  way,  which  finds  its  centre 
if  not  its  scope,  in  the  millennial  condition  of  Jerusalem  and 
her  people,  but  in  a  full,  physical  sense,  consequent  upon  the 
day  of  the  Lord  wherein  the  heavens  pass  away  and  the  earth 
is  burned  up.  But  it  was  not  the  business  of  Peter  but  of  John 
to  lay  down  the  positive  landmarks  of  time,  though  he  does  not 
give  us  certain  elements  with  more  precision  than  the  Old  Tes- 
tament promise  he  refers  to.  Accordingly  it  is  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse that  we  meet  the  unambiguous  statement  that  the  reign 
of  Christ  and  the  glorified  saints  for  1000  years,  besides  a  brief 
space  after  that,  takes  place  after  the  partial  accomplishment  of 
Isa.  Ixv.  and  before  the  fulfilment  of  Eev.  xxi.  1.  It  appears  to 
me  that  2  Peter  iii.  embraces  both  these  thoughts  within  the 
compass  of  "  the  day  of  the  Lord,"  which  is  used  in  the  largest 
application  of  the  term,  so  as  to  include  the  acorn  of  Isaiah  and 
the  full-grown  oak  of  St.  John,  who  alone  was  given  to  see,  or 
at  least  to  make  known,  the  exact  times  and  seasons  and  years 
connected  with  the  entire  scheme.  If  we  bear  in  mind  that  the 
millennium  is  styled  "  the  regeneration "  in  Matt,  xix.,  it  may 
help  us  to  see  that  the  difficulty  is  not  insuperable.  "  If  any 
man  be  in  Christ  he  is  a  new  creature,"  or  there  is  a  new  crea- 
tion. That  work  done  in  the  soul,  one  can  take  up  the  language 
of  faith  and  say,  "  Old  things  are  passed  away  ;  behold,  all 
things  are  become  new  : "  while  yet  it  is  evident  that,  as  to  fact, 
the  full  change  does  not  pass  over  the  man  until  the  coming  of 
the  Lord. 

Just  so  is  it  with  the  earth  : — the  millennium  is  "  the  re- 
generation," and  so,  even  then,  Isaiah  can  speak  those  rapturous 
words  which,  nevertheless,  will  not  have  their  actual  physical 
completion  till  that  dispensation  is  closed.     Besides,  if  the  latter 


is  to  be  insisted  on,  Mr.  B.  has  no  right  to  include  the  millen- 
nial Palestine,  or  M'hat  he  calls  "  the  earthly  paradise,"  among 
"  all  these  things  "  that  shall  be  dissolved  :  for  Peter  is  speaking 
solely  of  present  things,  or  things  of  a  like  nature,  whereas  the 
hypothesis  Mr.  B.  combats  supposes  a  vast  and  essential  differ- 
ence, at  least  as  to  Palestine,  commenced  at  the  beginning  and 
complete  at  the  end  of  the  day  of  the  Lord  ;  not  as  regards  that 
land  only,  but  the  earth  and  the  heavens  as  a  whole.  Now  it 
is  of  the  last  or  perfect  change  that  Pev.  xxi.  1  speaks,  as  it  is 
there  that  we  get  the  fullest  light  which  revelation  affords  on 
this  subject.  And  I  must  remind  him  of  Bengal's  wholesome 
words,  "  Antiqui  et  ea  autem  et  involutiora  dicta  ex  novissimis 
quibusque  et  distinctissimis  interpretari,  non  illis  ad  hsec  ener- 
vanda  et  eludenda  abuti  debemus."  Isaiah  Ixv.  and  2  Peter  iii. 
give  no  countenance  to,  while  Pev.  xx.  xxi.  positively  excludes 
the  wild  fancy  which  has  been  revived,  after  a  long  slumber, 
that  tlie  nations,  Gog  and  Magog,  are  the  wicked  dead  resusci- 
tated. And  this  is  only  one  of  the  many  absurdities  into  M'hich 
a  departure  from  the  plain  drift  of  these  chapters  reduces  the 


2  Peter  iii.  12. — 1.  The  Millennium  does  not  precede,  nor  is 
it  subsequent  to,  but  rather  included  in,  "the  day  of  God,"  as 
used  here  by  St.  Peter.  That  day  means,  as  I  suppose,  the  entire 
course  of  divine  intervention,  from  the  appearing  of  Christ  in 
glory  till  the  new  heavens  and  earth.  The  millennial  reign  is  a 
part  of  that  grand  scheme.  Nor  is  there  any  serious  difficulty 
in  accounting  for  the  existence  of  Gog  and  Magog  (Eev.  xx.), 
and  of  sin  and  death,  up  to  the  close  of  that  reign  ;  because, 
even  supposing  none  left  alive  in  their  natural  bodies  on  earth 
at  its  beginning,  save  the  righteous,  it  does  not  follow  tliat  their 
children  must  be.     So  that  one  can  readily  see  how,  during  so 


long  a  period  of  unbroken  peace  and  blessing,  there  might  be 
hosts  of  unconverted  Gentiles,  on  whom  Satan,  when  loosed, 
immediately  acts  in  deceit,  mustering  them  for  the  last  rebellion 
against  God.  I  must  be  excused  if  I  think  the  solution  which 
Dr.  Gumming  endorses  contrary  to  Scripture.  I  see  no  ingenuity, 
but  painful  confusion,  in  viewing  these  nations,  which  are  in 
the  four  quarters  of  the  earth,  as  similar  to  the  dead  in  their 
graves.  Not  the  devil,  but  God,  raises  them,  after  all  rebellion 
is  over. 

2.  I  think  some  will  find  that  the  main  root  of  their  diffi- 
culty lies  in  confounding  the  coming  with  the  day  of  the  Lord. 
The  early  Church  was  taught  to  expect  the  coming  of  Christ  as 
that  which  might  be  at  any  moment ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
events  were  revealed  as  antecedent  to  the  day  of  the  Lord  (not 
the  '^aDouala  merely,  but  the  sV/pai/g/a  t^s  'zaoovala;  a-jrou'),  which 
must  necessarily  occupy  some  years  at  least. 


Scripture  shows,  I  think,  that  conscience  has  a  twofold 
character,  which  is  rarely  distinguished  :  1.  Sense  of  responsi- 
bility to  God  ;  and  2,  Knowledge  of  things  as  good  or  evil  in 
themselves.  It  is  evident  that  Adam  had  the  first  character  of 
conscience  in  Eden  as  well  as  out  of  it ;  but  the  second  he  had 
not  till  the  fall  gave  him  a  bad  conscience.  Previously  he  was 
innocent, — not  holy,  but  ignorant  of  evil,  as  an  unfallen  crea- 
ture in  the  midst  of  what  was  very  good.  Before  the  fall  he 
did  not  know  what  lust  was,  nor  anytliing  else  of  what  we  call 
moral  evil.  For  the  eating  of  the  apple  was  evil,  not  in  itself, 
but  by  God's  command  to  abstain. 


Ephesians  iii.  15. — I  humbly  think  that  it  is  wrong  to  speak 


of  what  we  lose  by  giving  up  a  wrong  translation  for  a  right 
one ;  and  it  is  confessed  that  "  every  family "  is  here  required. 
Sure  I  am  that  the  true  rendering  suggests  not  merely  views 
equally  valuable,  but  much  more  so  than  tlie  false  one,  which 
has  really  confused  and  prejudiced  the  minds  of  Christians 
against  that  which  otherwise  might  have  been  apprehended  and 
enjoyed.  I  do  not  doubt  that  the  phrase  embraces  the  sum  of 
God's  intelligent  creation,  at  least  what  is  blest,  whether  in  the 
heavens  or  on  earth,  angelic  or  human. 


Daniel  xii.  2. — Many  Christians,  whose  judgment  is  to  be 
respected,  apply  this  passage  to  a  literal  resurrection.  But  they 
are  involved  in  difficulties,  from  which  ingenuity  essays  in  vain, 
as  I  think,  to  extricate  them.  Instead  of  commenting  on  what 
appear  to  me  mistakes,  let  me  state  my  firm  conviction  that  a 
national  resuscitation  of  Daniel's  people,  i.  e.  Israel,  is  in  question 
here,  as  in  Isa.  xxvi.  and  Ezek.  xxxvii.  This  being  understood, 
the  entire  context  is  plain.  It  is  at  the  time  of  their  deepest 
distress  that  jNIichael  stands  up,  and  not  merely  are  all  those 
elect  Jews  delivered  who  have  been  glanced  at  in  the  previous 
parts  of  this  prophecy,  but  many  who  are  dispersed,  as  it  were 
buried,  or  at  least  slumbering,  among  the  Gentiles,  aM'ake,  some 
to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt. 
(Compare  Isa.  Ixvi.  suh  Jincm.)  Then  follows  the  peculiar 
blessedness  of  the  "  Maschilim,"  i.e.  tlie  understanding  ones, 
that  instruct  the  mass  in  righteousness,  who,  instead  of  going 
out  like  the  moon,  though  it  may  appear  again,  shine  as  the 
stars  for  ever  and  ever.  This  figurative  application  of  a  resur- 
rection to  Israel's  circumstances  at  the  close  of  the  age  is  of 
course  perfectly  consistent  with  a  real  bodily  resurrection  of 
saints  before,  and  of  the  wicked  after,  the  millennium,  as  in  Eov. 
XX.  4-12. 



I  am  aware  of  the  assertion  that  the  phrase  n>)xi-n^s  is  never 
used  elsewhere  in  Hebrew  as  distributive  of  a  general  class 
previously  mentioned.  But  I  believe  it  to  be  unfounded.  The 
reader  has  only  to  examine  Joshua  viii.  22,  and  he  wiU  see  that 
the  pronoun  is  used  in  a  similar  way,  Israel  being  the  general 
class,  and  the  same  expression  as  here  taking  it  up  distributively. 
Accordingly,  our  English  Bible  in  both  cases,  and  in  my 
judgment  rightly,  translates  "  some  .  .  .  and  some."  Of  course 
it  is  not  denied  that  in  certain  circumstances  "  these "  and 
"  those  "  would  well  represent  the  meaning.  My  opinion  is  that 
the  other  is  an  equally  legitimate  rendering  wherever  required 
by  the  context,  as  I  conceive  it  to  be  in  both  the  texts  cited. 
And  such,  I  find,  is  the  view  of  the  Vulgate  and  Luther  as  to 
Dan.  xiL  2. 

Again,  I  have  no  sympathy  with  those  who  apply  this  verse  to 
mere  temporal  deliverance.  But  it  is  not  a  necessary  inference, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  the  words  "  everlasting  life "  imply  a 
resurrection-state.  People  forget  that  the  saved  Israelites  in 
question  are  supposed  to  possess  eternal  life,  which  certainly 
may  be  before  any  change  as  to  the  body.  It  may  help  some 
readers  to  notice  a  somewhat  parallel  case,  both  in  good  and 
evil,  as  respects  the  Gentiles  in  Matt.  xxv.  46.  Plainly  they  are 
the  nations  at  the  beginning  of  the  millennium  discriminated 
as  sheep  and  goats,  and  dealt  with  by  the  King  without  delay. 
"  And  these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment ;  but  the 
righteous  into  life  eternal."  So,  when  Israel  reappears  in  that 
day,  sad  examples  are  to  be  there,  whose  "  worm  shall  not  die, 
neither  shall  their  fire  be  quenched,  and  they  shall  be  an 
abhorring  to  all  flesh  ;"  while  others  are  to  be  brought  an  offer- 
ing to  the  Lord,  who  shall  not  labour  in  vain,  nor  bring  forth  for 
trouble ;  for  they  are  the  seed  of  the  blessed  of  the  Lord,  and 
their  offspring  with  them.  These  awake  to  everlasting  life  ;  the 
others  are  abandoned  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt,  apart 
from  the  question  of  resurrection.      It  will  be  a  time,  not  of 


national  deliverance  merely,  but  of  signal  mercy  and  judgment 
from  God  ;  and  this  for  Israel  after  their  long  sleep  among  the 
Gentiles,  as  well  as  for  such  Jews  as  will  have  figured  more  in 
the  previous  crisis  in  the  land.  The  Maschilim  seem  to  be  a 
special  class  still  more  distinguished  (ver  3). 


In  "  The  Phoenix,"  "  a  collection  of  manuscripts  and  printed 
tracts,  nowhere  to  be  found  but  in  the  closets  of  the  curious 
(1707),"  there  is  a  paper  with  the  above  title,  "  proving  that 
Christ  was  not  born  in  December."  The  book  is  not  very 
scarce,  so  I  need  not  transcribe  the  article.  The  following  is 
the  substance  of  it,  which  may  prove  interesting  : — 

"  David  divided  the  year's  service  of  the  priests  into  twenty-four 
courses,  and  the  eighth  course  fell  to  Abijah  (1  Chron.  xxiv.  10). 

"  The  Jewish  ecclesiastical  year,  commencing  with  the  month  Abib  or 
Nisan,  nearlj'  corresponding  to  our  March,  O.S.,  the  eighth  course  would 
occur  at  the  end  of  June  or  at  the  beginning  of  July  in  our  computation. 

"  Zacharias,  the  father  of  John  the  Baptist,  was  of  the  course  of  Abia, 
and  as  he  was  ministering,  *  in  the  order  of  his  course '  (that  is,  in  June 
or  July),  when  the  angel  appeared  to  him,  and  that  immediately  on  his 
return  home  his  wife  Elizabeth  conceived,  it  follows  that  the  conception 
of  John  the  Baptist  was  about  Midsummer,  where  we  place  his  birth. 

"  In  the  sixth  month  of  Elizabeth's  pregnancy  (Luke  i.  26-36),  i.e..  in 
December,  where  we  place  Christ's  birth,  the  angel  Gabriel  announced  to 
the  Virgin  Mary  that  she  should  be  the  mother  of  the  Christ  ;  and,  counting 
onward  for  nine  months,  we  come  to  the  month  of  September,  and  to  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles,  which  was  a  type  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of 
God,  as  the  period  of  the  Saviour's  birth. 

"  In  which  feast-time  of  eight  days,  Christ  pitched  in  the  tabernacle 
of  His  flesh  amongst  us,  as  appears,  John  i.  14  :  '  And  the  Word  was 
made  flesh  (xa/  ictltivmgdi  sv  rj/j^Tv),  and  pitched  his  tabernacle  amongst 
us : '  He  became  a  Sctenite.  Thus  (we)  behold  the  sweet  harmony 
between  the  type  and  the  thing  typified,  for  Christ  came  not  to  break  the 
law,  but  to  fulfil  it." 


The  error  appears  to  have  arisen  from  supposing  that  Zacha- 
rias  was  the  high  priest,  in  which  case  his  ministry  would  have 
occurred  in  September.  [Is  there  any  other  thought  of  this 
subject  ?] 


As  a  preliminary  to  any  detailed  observations  on  the  Gospels, 
allow  me  briefly  to  notice  the  wisdom  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
choice  of  each  workman  for  his  work. 

"  Matthew,  the  publican,"  was  not  one  whom  man  would 
have  selected  as  the  apostle  and  biographer  of  the  Messiah.  At 
first  sight  he  might  seem  the  least  eligible  for  presenting  the 
Lord  to  the  Jews,  for,  as  a  class,  none  were  in  such  disrepute  as 
those  Jews  who  consented  to  gather  the  taxes  which  the  Eomans 
imposed  on  their  nation.  But,  regarded  more  closely,  nothing 
could  have  been  in  more  admirable  keeping  with  the  line  of 
things  which  the  Holy  Ghost  traces  in  his  Gospel,  for  Jesus 
there  is  not  the  Messiah  only,  but  the  rejected  Messiah.  His 
rejection,  with  its  grave  and  fruitful  results,  is  just  as  much  the 
theme  as  His  intrinsic  claims,  with  all  God's  external  attesta- 
tions. And  who  so  fit  a  witness  oi  the  grace  which  would  seek 
the  least  worthy,  if  those  "  that  were  bidden"  would  not  come, 
as  he  who  was  called  from  the  odious  receipt  of  customs  ? 

In  the  second  Gospel  the  Spirit  is  evidently  developing  the 
perfectnoss  of  the  Lord's  ministry  in  word  and  deed.  Now 
"  John,  whose  surname  was  Marlv,"  was  just  the  right  person  for 
such  a  task,  always  bearing  in  mind  that  none  was  fit  unless 
immediately  inspired  to  write.  But,  among  those  who  were  so 
empowered  of  God,  John  Mark  was  precisely  the  one  fitted  by 
personal  experience  to  appreciate,  when  the  Spirit  gave  him  to 
indite  that  Divine  account  of  the  gospel-service  of  Jesus  ;  for  he 
had  bitterly  known  what  it  was  to  put  his  liand  to  the  plough 
and  look  back,  with  its  painful  consequences  on  all  sides  (Acts 
xiii.-xv.)     But  he  had  also  learned,  to  his  joy,  and  the  blessing 


of  others,  that  the  Lord  can  restore  aud  strengthen,  giving  us, 
tlirough  His  grace,  to  overcome  wherein  we  have  most  broken 
down.  This  very  Mark  subsequently  became  a  fellow-worker  of 
St.  Paul,  and  a  comfort  to  him,  as  much  as  earlier  he  had  been 
a  sorrow  (Col.  iv.)  "  Take  Mark,"  says  he,  in  his  last  letter  to 
Timothy,  "  and  bring  him  with  thee  ;  for  he  is  profitable  to  me 
for  the  ministry." 

For  the  writing  of  the  third  Gospel,  again,  Luke  was  mani- 
festly the  most  appropriate  instrument.  From  Col.  iv.  it  would 
seem  that  he  was  a  Gentile,  and  by  profession  a  physician,  both 
which  particulars,  as  well  as  its  dedication  to  Theophilus,  won- 
derfully harmonise  with  the  way  in  which  our  Lord  is  there 
depicted  ;  not  so  much  the  Messiah,  nor  the  Servant,  but  "  the 
]\Lin,  Christ  Jesus,"  the  Son  of  God  born  of  the  Virgin,  in  His 
largest  human  relations,  in  His  obedience  and  prayerfulness,  in 
llis  social  sympathies,  in  miracles  of  healing  aud  cleansing,  in 
parables  of  special  tenderness  towards  the  lost.  It  is  this  pro- 
minence of  our  Lord's  manhood,  as  brought  out  in  Luke,  which 
to  me  accounts  for  the  emphatic  statements  of  grace  to  Gentiles, 
as  it  falls  in  with  the  special  form  of  his  preface,  which  has 
been  so  frightfully  abused  by  rationalists  in  general,  English  or 
foreign.  He  lets  us  know  his  motives,  and  seeks  to  draw  Theo- 
philus by  the  cords  of  a  man  ;  but  if  there  be  thus  a  human  side 
of  the  picture,  there  is  another  as  divine  as  in  the  other  Gospels, 
where  the  thoughts  and  feelings  of  the  heart  are  not  so  laid  bare. 
The  notion  that  such  an  opening,  touchingiy  suited  as  it  is  to 
the  way  in  which  our  Lord  is  throughout  presented  in  this 
Gospel,  should  induce  us  to  regard  the  writer  as  a  mere  faithfid 
and  honest  compiler,  without  supernatural  guidance  in  the 
arrangement  of  his  subject-matter,  etc.,  is  worthy  only  of  an 
infidel.  And  it  is  only  to  cheat  oneself  or  others  with  vain 
words  to  affirm  that  the  occurrence  of  demonstrable  mistakes  in 
the  Gospels  does  not  in  any  M^ay  affect  the  inspiration  of  the 
Evangelists.    The  profanity  of  these  statements  scarcely  exceeds 


their  folly,  nor  should  I  have  taken  this  opportunity  to  de- 
nounce them  if  they  were  not  at  this  moment  finding  extensive 
acceptance,  especially  among  young  students,  not,  alas  !  without 
the  sanction  of  those  who  ought  to  know  better. 

Lastly,  that  St.  John  was  eminently  the  right  instrument  for 
his  task  is  most  apparent.  Who  could  so  fitly,  if  so  it  pleased 
the  Holy  Ghost,  set  before  us  "  the  only  begotten  Son,  which  is 
in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,"  as  he  who  leaned  on  Jesus'  bosom, 
— the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  ? 


It  is  the  difference  of  design,  which,  to  me,  solves  the  difficulty 
stated  by  one  objector  or  another.  Matthew  and  Mark,  in  the 
body  of  their  Gospels,  are  occupied  with  the  Lord's  sojourn  and 
ministry  in  Galilee  ;  Luke  with  not  that  only,  but  His  gradual 
journey  to  Jerusalem  (ix.  51  ;  xiii.  22  ;  xvii.  11  ;  xviii.  31  ; 
xix.  28) ;  and  John  with  His  ways  and  words  in  or  near  Jerusalem 
itself  yet  more  than  elsewhere,  though  Galilee  and  Samaria  were 
assuredly  not  left  out.  "What  Matthew  describes  is  the  accom- 
plishment of  Jewish  prophecy  and  the  witness  of  Jerusalem's 
unbelief ;  while  Mark's  dwelling  on  the  same  arose,  I  think, 
from  the  fact  that  Galilee  was  the  actual  scene  of  our  Lord's 
service,  to  which  theme  his  Gospel  is  emphatically  devoted. 
Luke,  on  the  other  hand,  brings  out  the  lingering  of  our  Lord's 
love  and  pity  ;  His  face  is  steadfastly  set  on  the  place  where 
He  should  accomplish  His  decease ;  but  His  slow  steps  attest 
the  reluctance  and  the  sorrow  with  which  He  visits  Jerusalem 
for  the  last  time,  and  affords  the  crowning  proof  of  man's  total 
ruin,  in  His  blood  and  cross.  John,  finally,  regards  every  place 
and  being  in  the  light  of  His  personal  Divine  glory.  Jerusalem, 
therefore,  is  no  longer,  as  in  Matthew,  styled  "  the  holy  city." 
He  was  the  light,  the  true  light ;  all  outside,  and  everywhere 
else,  was  but  darkness,  and  Jerusalem  needed  the  Son  of  God 
as  much  as  Galilee,  and  was  no  more  to  Him,  in  that  point  of 


view,  than  any  other  spot.  He  could,  so  far  as  Himself  was 
concerned,  freely  speak  and  work  there  or  anywhere.  What 
was  "  this  mountain,"  nay,  what  Jerusalem,  to  the  Son  of  the 
Father  ?  If  there  was  nothing  to  attract,  there  was  nothing  in 
one  sense  which  could  repel.  He  who  was  full  of  grace  and 
truth  accepted  His  entire  humiliation,  and  found  objects  on 
which  to  expend  His  love  wherever  He  might  move — in  the 
boastful  city  of  holiness  no  less  than  in  the  barren  wilderness. 
It  is  the  design  impressed  by  God  upon  the  several  Gospels 
which  thus  simply  explains  a  fact  which  is  seen  by,  but  useless 
to,  him  who  denies  that  design. 


V  Luke  xiii.  24. — Strive  to  enter  in  at  the  strait  gate  :  for  many,  I  say 
unto  you,  will  seek  to  enter  in,  and  shall  not  be  able. 

The  true  solution  I  believe  to  lie  not  in  the  difference  of 
striving  and  seeking,  on  which  some  have  rested  unduly,  and 
others  so  mistakenly  as  in  effect  to  make  men  their  own 
saviours,  but  rather  in  this,  that,  while  many  will  seek  to  enter 
in,  it  is  not  at  the  strait  gate  but  by  some  method  of  human 
device.  The  natural  heart  dislikes  God  and  God's  way,  and  it 
easily  deceives  itself  into  a  vague  reliance  on  mercy  without 
righteousness,  which  is  an  infidel  thought,  or  into  a  vain  con- 
fidence in  religious  ordinances,  which  is  a  superstitious  one  :  in 
either  way,  man  is  lost.  People  might  like  to  enter  the  king- 
dom, but  not  by  regeneration  through  faith  in  Christ. 


Luke  xvi.  9. — Dean  Alford's  note  is  most  objectionable  in 
point  of  doctrine,  as  betraying  no  little  ignorance  of  the  true 
grace  of  God,  whilst  it  displays  also  lamentable  lack  of  acquaint- 
ance with  the  style  of  St.  Luke.     If  one  examine  Luke  vl  38, 


44 ;  xii.  20  ;  xiv.  35,  etc.,  he  will  perceive  tliat  Dean  A.'s  over- 
siglit  of  the  urns  loquendi  has  opened  the  door  for  the  wild  notion 
that  poor  and  needy  friends,  who  have  been  helped  here,  are  to 
receive  ns  into  the,  or  their,  everlasting  tabernacles  with  joy. 
It  is  clear  that  the  difficulty  is  no  greater  as  to  "they  shall 
receive,"  in  Luke  xvi.  9,  than  in  "  they  require  "  (a'xaiTtiZetv),  in 
chap.  xii.  20.  The  meaning  is  simply  "  ye  shall  be  received," 
"  thy  soul  is  required  : "  if  more  be  meant,  it  is  God,  not  man, 
who  receives  and  requires.  The  grand  point  is  the  sacrifice  of 
the  present,  in  view  of  what  is  future  and  eternal.  The  question 
is  not  the  means  or  title  to  enter  the  everlasting  habitations,  but 
the  character  of  those  who  shall  be  received  there. 


2  Peter  i.  20. — Permit  me  briefly  to  show  why  I  consider  the 
common  view  to  be  erroneous.  In  the  first  place  it  gives  no 
reason  for  taking  T^o^^jrg/a  as  equivalent  to  an  inspired  declara- 
tion, predictive  or  not.  Indeed,  I  am  not  aware  that  the  word 
in  the  New  Testament  ever  has  this  loose  meaning,  and  I  am 
quite  clear  that  the  verb  from  which  it  is  derived  countenances 
nothing  of  the  sort  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  3,  but  simply  contrasts  pro- 
phesying with  speaking  in  a  tongue.  In  other  words,  that  verse 
in  no  wa}'-  defines  prophesying,  but  compares  its  character  with 
the  gift  of  tongues.  But,  even  if  it  were  ever  so  used  beyond  a 
doubt  in  the  New  Testament,  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  context 
here  decidedly  restricts  ToofYirsia  to  the  revelation  of  future 

It  is  agreed  that  l-riXusig  means  interpretation,  or  the  act  of 
interpreting,  though  some,  as  Calvin  and  Grotius,  have  been  rash 
enough  to  venture  on  the  conjecture  iTrik-jomi,  and  many  more 
have  given  the  force  of  "  movement "  to  W/Xutr/?,  while  it  would 
really  require  i'^rriX-jai;  ( =  approach),  or  some  such  word. 

The  main  question  remains  as  to  the  force  and  reference  of 


'ihoi.  One  critic  reasons  from  its  frequent  opposition  to  xmog. 
But  this  is  too  narrow  a  foundation,  because  each  of  these  words 
possesses  significations  not  thus  opposed.  The  fact  is  that,  be- 
side tlie  elliptical  xar'  /'o/av,  "m:,  occurs  near  a  hundred  times  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  always  means  "  own  "  (his,  her,  its,  etc., 
according  to  the  case).  I  have  little  doubt,  both  from  geneml 
usage  and  from  the  verses  before  and  after  the  passage  under 
debate,  that  /^/as  here  refers  to  the  subject  of  the  sentence, 
•^riofrireia,  and  that  the  meaning  is,  "  No  prophecy  of  Scripture  is 
(or  is  made)  of  its  own  interpretation."  Taken  by  itself,  it  is 
not  its  own  interpreter,  but  must  be  viewed  as  part  of  a  grand 
whole,  whereof  Christ's  glory  is  the  centre.  I  must  be  excused, 
therefore,  if  I  believe  the  idea  of  some  to  be  as  thorough  a  perver- 
sion of  the  text  as  the  Romish  one.  One  contends  for  the  general 
right^of  man,  they  for  the  exclusive  prerogative  of  the  church 
so-called — both,  in  my  judgment,  dangerous  errors,  however  con- 
cealed or  explained.  The  Holy  Ghost  leads  us  to  connect  facts 
with  God's  purposes  in  Christ,  and  thus  to  understand  and  ex- 
pound prophecy,  which  taken  by  itself  is  never  rightly  known. 
Even  Eosenmuller,  "\Yahl,  etc.,  seem  to  agree  with  the  view  here 
contended  for. 


Rev.  xiv,  19. — "  The  vine  of  the  earth  "  is  the  symbol  of 
earthly  religion  in  its  last  apostate  state.  Christ,  the  Lord  from 
heaven,  is  the  true  vine  ;  this  is  the  false  vine,  the  scene  of 
whose  judgment  appears  to  be  Jerusalem  (cf.  verse  20).  Where 
Christ  suffered,  where  the  church  of  God  first  saw  the  light,  it 
would  seem  that  Satan  will  at  the  close  completely  triumph.  It 
is  important  to  note  that  it  is  a  distinct  and  subsequent  scene  to 
the  fall  of  Babylon,  given  already  in  the  same  chapter.  If  Rome 
be,  as  I  believe,  the  centre  of  one  picture,  Jerusalem  is,  I  think, 
of  the  other,  the  metropolis  respectively  of  Gentilism  and 
Judaism  in  their  antagonism  to  God  at  the  end  of  the  age. 



Revelation  xxii,  17.  —  I  do  not  wonder  that  there  are 
difficulties  felt  in  accepting  the  interpretation  of  those  who 
apply  this  verse  exclusively  to  the  Lord  or  to  sinners.  The 
truth  is  that  the  former  portion  refers  to  the  one,  and  the  latter 
to  the  other.  Nothing  can  be  sweeter  nor  clearer  when  seen. 
Jesus  had  just  announced  Himself  as  not  merely  the  root  and 
the  offspring  of  David,  but  the  bright  and  morning  star.  Im- 
mediately the  church, with  the  bridal  affections,  says,  Come.  It 
is  the  Bridegroom  that  thus  awakens  her  desires  that  He  should 
come.  He  is  the  first  object  of  the  heart,  and  lest  it  should  be 
thought  to  be  a  mere  human,  unsanctioned  longing,  it  is  added, 
"  The  Spirit  and  the  bride  say,  Come." 

But  there  are  many  who  have  heard  His  voice  and  been 
washed  in  His  blood  who  yet  feebl}^  know  their  privileges  in 
Him  ;  they  little  if  at  all  appreciate  what  He  is  as  the  Bride- 
groom, what  they  are  as  His  bride.  Are  these  to  be  silent  ? 
Nay,  "  let  him  that  heareth  say,  Come."  They  may  know  his 
love  but  imperfectly  :  still  let  them  not  fear  to  say,  Come. 

But  does  not  such  a  hope,  such  a  waiting  of  the  heart, 
hinder  one's  yearning  after  poor  souls  ?  Enemies  have  said  so, 
mistaken  friends  may  have  thought  so  ;  but  God  links  the  two 
most  blessedly  together.  If  the  bride,  if  the  individual  saint, 
owe  the  first  love  of  the  heart  to  Him  who  is  coming  to  meet 
us  in  the  air,  so  much  the  more  can  we  turn  round  to  the  needy 
world  and  invite  him  that  is  athirst  to  come  (not  to  say,  Come, 
which  to  him,  indeed,  were  but  judgment).  Nay,  even  if  I  meet 
a  soul  who  perhaps  has  not  yet  known  real  soul-thirst,  yet  is 
willing,  I  can  bid  him  freely  welcome  :  "  whosoever  will,  let  him 
take  the  water  of  life  freely."  It  is  a  perfectly  beautiful  scene, 
which  the  Lord  grant  us  better  to  know  and  enjoy  by  the  Holy 
Ghost ! 



One  asks  :  1.  What  will  determine,  even  approximately,  the 
date  of  this  prophecy  ?  It  is  evident  that  the  date  assigned  in 
some  Bibles  (b.  c.  587)  is  a  mistake  ;  probably  b.  c.  517  was 
meant,  which  would  better  accord  with  the  previous  dates  520- 
518  B.  c.  The  Edinburgh  Bible  of  Blair  and  Bruce,  like  that  of 
the  London  Tract  Society,  gives  the  date  according  to  your  cor- 
respondent. On  the  other  hand,  the  Oxford  Bible  (4to,  1845) 
gives  a  century  nearer  Christ,  i.  e.  487,  both  of  which  seem  to 
me  highly  improbable ;  while  Bagster's  Bible,  after  dating 
several  of  the  preceding  chapters  B.  c.  518,  suddenly  fixes  chap, 
xiv.  at  B.  c.  587  ;  and  Collins's  Bible  (1855)  is  equally  strange, 
putting  B.  c.  587  to  the  preceding  chapters,  and  E.  c.  5l7  to  chap, 
xiv. !  For  myself,  I  see  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Zech.  ix.-xiv. 
form  a  part  of  the  great  prophecy  which  commences  with  chap, 
vii. ;  and  I  conceive  that  they  may  have  been  given  in  or  not 
long  after  the  fourth  year  of  Darius  Hystaspes.  (Compare  Ezra 
V.)  To  put  this  prophecy  as  far  back  as  the  reign  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar is,  in  my  opinion,  of  all  hypotheses  the  least  reasonable. 

2.  The  "  idol  shepherd "  is  Antichrist,  whom  retributive 
judgment  is  to  raise  up  in  the  land  of  Judea  in  the  last  times. 
"  If  another  shall  come  in  his  own  name,  him  ye  Nvill  receive." 
He  shall  in  the  end  suffer  the  sternest  vengeance  of  God.  This 
is  no  modern  opinion. 

Pastor  stultus,  et  imperitus  (says  Jerome,  Comment,  in  Zech.  lib.  iii. 
cap.  xi,),  baud  dubium  quia  Anticliristus  sit,  qui  in  consummatione  muudi 

dicitur  esse  venturus  et  qiialis  ventunis  sit,  indicatur Iste  pastor 

ideo  resurgat  in  Israel,  quia  verus  pastor  dixerat :  Jam  non  pascam  vos. 
Qui  alio  nomine  et  in  Daniele  propheta  (cap.  ix.)  et  in  Evangelio  (Marc, 
xiii.)  et  in  epistola  Pauli  ad  Thessalonienses  (2  Thess.  ii.),  dbominatio 
desolationis,  sessurus  in  templo  Domini,  et  se  facturus  ut  Deum,  qui  et  per 

Isaaiam  magnus  sensus   dicitur  (Isai.  xxxii.) Tam  sceleratus  est 

pastor,  ut  non  idolorum  cultor,  sed  ipse  idolum  nominetur,  dum  se  appellat 
Deum,  et  vult  ab  omnibus  adorari. 


3.  There  is  no  reason  that  I  see  for  identifying  the  stone  in 
Zech.  xii.  3  with  that  in  Matt.  xxi.  44  Tiie  former  evidently 
means  Jerusalem  itself,  the  latter  the  Lord  Himself  in  two 
positions,  answering  to  the  two  advents.  First  in  His  humilia- 
tion, He  is  a  stone  as  it  were  in  the  ground,  and  "  whosoever  shall 
fall  on  it  shall  be  broken,"  verified  in  all  unbelievers,  but 
especially  in  the  Jews  ;  next,  He  is  exalted  to  heaven,  and 
coming  again  in  power  and  great  glory.  He  will  execute  de- 
structive judgment — "  on  whomsoever  it  shall  fall,  it  will  grind 
him  to  j)owder."  (Cf.  Dan.  ii.  vii. ;  Eev.  xix.)  "  A  burdensome 
stone "  is  another  idea,  and  will  be  true  of  Jerusalem  in  the 
latter  day,  when  the  Assyrian  heads  a  grand  Geutile  confederacy 
after  the  Antichrist  is  disposed  of,  which  is  the  subject  of  Zech. 
xii.  2-6,  xiv.  1-3  :  also  Isaiah,  Micah,  Daniel,  and  other 
prophets,  treat  of  this  closing  king  of  the  North. 

4.  There  is  no  intermingling  of  the  church  or  Christian 
body  with  the  subjects  of  this  prophecy.  There  may  have  been 
some  partial  application  in  the  past,  as  there  will  assuredly  be 
a  complete  fulfilment  in  the  future  ;  but  it  is  Judali  and 
Jerusalem  that  are  in  question,  whatever  profit  the  church 
or  Christian  may  and  ought  to  draw  from  this  as  from  all 

5.  The  double  reference  of  John  xix.  36,  and  Eev.  i.  7,  is 
s?imply  to  link  both  advents  into  the  prophecy,  which  mainly 
bears  on  the  second,  but  presupposes  the  first.  "  They  shall  look 
upon  Me  whom  they  have  pierced."  Bat  Eev.  i.  7  is  so  far 
from  intimating  a  general  conversion  of  mankind  previous  to  the 
return  of  the  Lord,  that  it  plainly  enough  insinuates  their  then 
unbelief,  for  "  all  kindreds  of  the  earth  shall  wail  because  of 
him."     He  will  be  unwelcome  to  them. 

6.  The  mourning  of  godly  awakened  consciences,  when 
Jehovah-Jesus  is  seen,  to  the  final  deliverance  of  Jerusalem  and 
the  total  overthrow  of  all  their  Gentile  foes,  is  most  strikingly 
described  in  verses  10-14,  but  it  is  in  terms  which  exclude  the 


revival  in  Ezra's  time,  save  as  being  a  feeble  earnest.  Each  felt 
alone  with  the  Lord  ;  and  those  families  are  specially  named 
who  represent  prominent  classes  in  Israel  from  the  beginning, 
and  throughout  their  history. 


The  doctrine  of  the  future  state  was  taught  in  the  Pentateuch, 
as  well  as  in  later  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  absurd  to 
pretend  that  Psa.  xvi.  9,  10  ;  xvii.  14,  15  ;  xlix.  14,  15,  were 
written  after  the  Captivity  ;  or  to  deny  that  they  reveal  or 
imply  the  resurrection.  There  is  no  sort  of  difficulty  in  sup- 
posing that  Zoroaster  borrowed  what  he  knew  of  this  truth  from 
Holy  Writ,  which  was  certainly  more  or  less  known  to  him.  I 
am  not  at  all  disposed  to  give  up  Job  xix.  26,  27  ;  for  I  think 
it  a  decisive  testimony  to  this  precious  truth,  and  the  more 
striking  as  proving  it  to  be  held  by  saints  outside  the  fathers,  or 
the  children  of  Israel :  so  that  this  again  would  readily  account 
for  traces  of  its  traditional  existence  in  the  East  long  before  the 
Captivity.  In  spite  of  all  the  assaults  of  critics,  I  am  satisfied 
that,  in  all  that  is  needed  for  bringing  out  a  true  bodily  revival 
wherein  the  patriarch  expected  to  see  the  Piedeemer  stand  on  the 
earth,  the  English  Bible  gives  the  substantial  truth.  So  does 
the  Septuagint,  in  spite  of  inaccuracies — alha  ya^  on  dswaor.  hnv 

6  ixXvsiv  [li  fJbsXXuv  iTi  yrig  dvaar^aai  rb  Bsg/xa  fiou  to  dvavrXoZv  raZra. 
So  Jerome,  in  his  interlinear  exposition  of  the  book,  gives  a 
version  which  is  identical  with  his  Vulgate  save  in  the  addition 
of  one  word,  though  I  allow  that  his  Latin  is  far  more  distant 
from  the  sense  of  the  Hebrew  than  our  authorised  English.  His 
comment  is  plain  enough  : — 

Ego,  inquam,jam  corruptus  ulceribus,  in  hac  came  mortali  incorniptus, 
per  resurrectionem  futuram  glorificatus  viclebo  Deiim.  Certus  atque  in- 
commutabilis  in  hoc  fundamento  fidei  ista  loquebatur. 

De  Wette,  it  is  true,  gives  a  very  different  turn,  adopting  a 


sense  of  the  last  clause  of  ver.  26,  suggested  in  our  margin  ;  but 
I  unequivocally  prefer  the  authorised  text,  for  though  jD  often 
occurs  in  the  sense  "  out  of,"  "  without,"  "  from,"  the  meaning 
is  not  that  he  should  see  God  apart  from  the  flesh,  or  having  no 
body,  but  that  from  out  of  the  flesh  he  should  see  Him,  or  sub- 
stantially "  in  his  flesh."  This  is  confirmed  by  the  next  verse, 
"  Whom  I  shall  see  for  myself,  and  mine  eyes  shall  behold,  and 
not  another  : "  a  real  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  nothing  else. 
I  believe  that  Isa.  xxvi.  19,  like  Dan.  xii.  2,  refers  to  the 
national  resuscitation  of  Israel,  converted  and  restored  by  the 
power  of  God.  The  terms  are  of  course  borrowed  from,  and 
presuppose  the  known  truth  of,  a  bodily  resurrection.  See  also 
Ezek.  xxxvii.  and  Hosea  vi.  2,  xiii.  14,  which,  in  my  opinion, 
entirely  relieve  this  interpretation  from  the  charge  of  halting. 
The  omission  of  the  words  inserted  by  our  translators  may  help 
to  make  the  meaning  of  Isaiah  plainer. 


Luke  xxiii.  34. — I  am  persuaded  that  it  is  perfectly  true 
that  Christ  is  here  presented  as  interceding  for  the  guilty  people 
who  took,  and  by  wicked  hands  crucified  and  slew  Him.  The 
grand  design  in  this  part  of  Luke  is  to  bring  out  the  iniquity  of 
Israel  and  the  grace  of  Christ  in  spite  of  all.  I  say  nothing  of 
"  Pontius  Pilate,"  who,  indeed,  would  have  released  Him  but  for 
fearing  the  Jews  and  CfEsar ;  but  it  is  evident  to  me  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  by  Peter  expressly  refers,  in  Acts  iii.  17,  to  this 
intercession  of  Jesus,  and  proves  tliat  the  people  of  the  Jews 
and  their  rulers  were  intended.  Further,  the  intercession  did 
prevail  partially  as  to  sphere  then,  as  it  will  by  and  by  triumph, 
when  "  all  Israel  shall  be  saved."  To  lower  the  Lord's  interces- 
sion to  the  mere  pattern  of  various  eminent  persons  forgiving 
their  executioner,  ought  to  be,  in  my  opinion,  repulsive  to  a 
spiritual  mind.     It  needs  little  argument  to  refute  the  notion. 



John  vi. — It  may  help  some  of  your  readers  to  bear  in  mind 
that  "  the  last  day  "  has  a  broad  moral  force,  like  "  the  day  of  the 
Lord  "  in  2  Peter  iii.,  save  that  it  applies  yet  more  extensively, 
taking  in  the  resurrection  of  the  saints,  which  "the  day  of  the 
Lord  "  is  nowhere  said  to  embrace.  Between  John  vi.  39, 40,  and 
John  xii.  48,  the  Millennium  (Rev.  xx.  4,  5)  intervenes,  "the  last 
day "  beginning  a  little  before,  and  ending  a  little  after  it.  It 
is  a  vague,  or  general  expression  of  the  entire  closing  scene, 
when  man's  day  is  over  and  God  acts  in  power,  whether  in 
blessing  or  judgment. 


Psalm  xvi.  2,  3. — I  am  of  opinion  that  the  main  idea  of  the 
Psalm  is  the  perfectness  of  Messiah's  dependence  on  Jehovah, 
shown  in  His  humiliation  here  below  (Heb.  ii.),  and  vindicated 
in  His  resurrection  (Acts  ii.)  Hence  it  is  that,  while  a  divine 
person,  yet  taking  the  place  of  a  servant,  His  soul  (for  it  is 
feminine)  said  to  Jehovah,  "  Thou  art  my  Lord  ;  my  goodness  is 
not  to  Thee."  It  is  the  expression  of  his  self-renunciation  as 
man,  which  was  in  truth  His  moral  glory.  (Compare  Mark  x. 
17-27  ;  Luke  xviii.  18,  etc.) 

On  the  other  hand.  He  said,  "  To  the  saints  who  are  in  the 
earth,  and  the  excellent,  All  my  delight  is  in  them."  This  latter 
was  acted  out  in  His  baptism,  when  He  thus  fulfilled  all  right- 
eousness and  identified  Himself  in  grace  M'ith  the  godly  in  Israel. 
As  man.  He  did  not  exalt  himself,  but  gave  the  entire  glory  to 
God ;  and  this  not  in  austere  distance  from  the  despised  remnant 
who  bowed  to  the  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist,  but  graciously 
entering  into  and  sympathising  with  their  true  place  before 
God.  "  He  that  sanctifieth,  and  they  who  are  sanctified,  are  all 
of  one." 



Galatians  iii.  23. — "  Faith  "  is  not  here  put  for  its  object,  I 
think,  but  is  contrasted  with  the  law  when  fully  declared  to  be 
the  sole  means  of  justification,  as  it  was  after  the  cross  of  Jesus, 
when  all  pretension  to  stand  before  God  on  the  law  was  mani- 
festly at  an  end.  Faith  was  always  that  whereby  saints  were 
justified  really,  even  while  the  Levitical  system  had  its  place, 
and,  if  I  may  so  say,  obscured  the  faith  which  wa's  within  : 
then  all  that  was  outward  fell,  and  the  faith  stood  revealed. 


There  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  fact  that  the  Septuagint  was 
generally  used  by  our  Lord  and  the  inspired  writers  of  the  New 
Testament.  But  this  fact  ought  not  to  be  abused  to  the  denial 
of  what  is  equally  certain — that  it  contains  numerous  mistrans- 
lations throughout,  and  is  in  no  way  to  be  compared  for  accuracy 
with  the  authorised  version.  Nevertheless  the  Holy  Ghost  con- 
descended to  use  it  freely,  adopting  its  language,  where  true, 
even  if  it  differed  from  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  :  just  as 
occasionally  He  gives  a  paraphrase  which  differs  from  both.  It 
was  a  most  important  witness  already  extant  among  the  Gentiles, 
and  God  employed  it  in  grace  without  in  any  way  guaranteeing 
the  inspiration  of  the  LXX,  or  of  their  work.  "What  would  be 
thought  of  the  argument  that  the  works  of  Menander  or  Epi- 
menides  were  inspired  because  the  Holy  Ghost  cited  them  in  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul?  It  was  not  an  unnatural  thing  that  the 
early  fathers,  Greek  and  Latin,  should  attach  an  exaggerated 
value  to  the  version  chiefly  in  use  among  them.  Not  even 
Augustine  knoM^  the  Hebrew  original,  and  of  the  Latins  scarce 
any  save  Jerome.  It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  the  idea 
should  be  revived  by  a  respectable  scholar  of  our  own  day. 



Daniel  ii.  44. — The  meaning  is  not  the  four  kingdoms  in 
reference  to  the  fourfold  succession  in  the  metallic  image,  but 
rather,  as  it  seems  to  me,  an  incidental  allusion  to  the  peculiar 
and  complex  constitution  of  the  fourth,  last  empire  of  man. 
"  The  kingdom  shall  be  divided,"  speaking  of  the  feet  and 
toes  (ver.  41),  and  to  this  we  must  refer,  as  I  consider,  "  the 
days  of  these  kings  "  (ver.  44).  The  consequence  is  important ; 
for  thereby  is  excluded  Mede's  scheme  of  the  regnum  lapidis, 
first ;  and  the  regnum  montis,  by  and  by.  I  can  understand  this 
in  a  certain  sense  ;  but  it  is  not  the  teaching,  in  my  oj)inion,  of 
this  chapter.  God's  kingdom,  here  described  and  symbolised 
by  the  stone,  is  raised  up  not  in  the  days  of  Augustus  or 
Tiberius,  much  less  in  those  of  Constantine,  but  in  the  days  of 
the  decem-regal  division  of  the  Eoman  Empire.  (Compare  Dan. 
vii.  7-14,  23-26  ;  Eev.  xvii.  7-14.)  The  first  exercise  of  its 
power  is  to  break  in  pieces  and  consume  all  existing  empire  ; 
all,  at  least  included  in  the  prefigurations  of  the  statue.  There 
is  no  such  idea  as  the  gradual  action  of  the  stone  upon  the  statue  ; 
but  a  sudden  and  decisive  judgment,  which  crumbles  the  statue 
into  dust ;  after  which,  the  stone  which  smote  the  image  became 
a  great  mountain,  and  filled  the  whole  earth.  Evidently  this 
is  not  the  gospel  which  wins  souls  to  Christ,  and  saves  them  ; 
it  is  not  a  revolution,  moral  or  material,  which  man  brinjis  about. 
It  is  nothing  less  than  the  power  of  God  administered  by  the 
Lord  Jesus  ;  the  stone  cut  without  hands,  dealing  with  the 
powers  of  the  world,  and  judging  their  final  antichristianism,  in 
order  to  make  way  for  His  own  manifest  and  immediate  domi- 
nion. "  And  the  Lord  shall  be  King  over  all  the  earth  :  in  that 
day  shall  there  be  pne  Lord,  and  His  name  one."  I  would  add 
my  opinion,  that  "  these  kings,"  symbolically  set  forth,  by  the 
toes  here,  and  by  the  ten  horns  in  Dan.  vii.,  pertain  exclusively 
to  the  West  or  European  part  of  the  Eoman  Empire.     For  we 



must  leave  room  for  the  destruction  of  what  is  represented  by 
the  gold,  silver,  and  brass,  no  less  than  for  the  portion  of  iron 
and  clay. 


Ephesians  iv.  4. 

If  our  readers  will  dispassionately  inquire  into  the  testimony 
of  God's  word,  I  am  persuaded  that  they  will  distinguish,  as 
Scripture  does,  between  the  saints  of  the  old  Testament  and  those 
who  are  now  being  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost  into  one  body. 
The  question  of  the  one  body  really  turns  on  that  baptism.  For 
those  only  who  are  baptized  of  the  Spirit  constitute  that  body 
(1  Cor.  xii.  13)  ;  and  it  is  certain  that  this  baptism  did  not  exist 
before  the  day  of  Pentecost.  (Compare  Acts  i.  and  ii.)  No  one 
denies  that  the  Old  Testament  saints  were  born  of  the  Spirit, 
that  they  were  justified  by  faith,  or  that  we  are  to  sit  with  them 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

But  the  New  Testament  shows  that  a  corporate  unity,  over 
and  beyond  their  common  privileges,  was  formed  by  the  descent 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  consequent  on  the  accomplishment  of  redemp- 
tion by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  this  solely  is  called  the  "  one 
body."     Ephesians  ii.  iii.  iv.  are  most  explicit  as  to  this. 

None  are  contemplated  as  members  of  this  one  new  man, 
save  those  in  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  dwells,  and  so  unites  to  a 
glorified  Head  in  heaven.  Eor  the  union  here  spoken  of  is  an 
actual  subsisting  fact,  and  therefore  incapable  of  being  predi- 
cated, as  it  never  is  in  Scripture,  of  saints  previously.  They 
had  righteousness  imputed  to  them,  as  it  is  to  us  ;  but  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  not  then  sent  down,  as  he  is  now,  to  baptize  Jews 
and  Gentiles  that  believe  into  one  body. 

Further,  I  am  of  opinion  that  Hob.  xii.  distinguishes  in  the 
most  positive  way  between  "  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  per- 
fect" {i.e.  the  Old  Testament  saints)  and  the  "  church  of  the  first 


born,  which  are  written  in  heaven."  So  that  this  text,  with  1 
Cor.  xii.  and  Ephes.  il-iv,,  contradicts  the  ordinary  confusion  on 
the  subject. 


Matthew  xxv.  1-13. — Whether  the  lamps  had  gone,  or 
were  only  going  out,  makes  no  real  difference  as  to  the  grand 
teaching  of  the  parable  ;  and,  as  far  as  this  goes,  either  the 
one  or  the  other  is  quite  compatible  with  the  absence  of  oil. 
The  statement  that  the  foolish  "have  some  oil"  is  most 
objectionable:  not  a  word  implies  it;  nay,  what  is  said  both 
by  the  wise  virgins  and  the  Lord  would  imply  the  reverse, 
even  if  we  had  not  the  plain  and  positive  declaration  that 
the  foolish  "took  their  lamps  and  took  no  oil  with  them." 
Why  might  not  wicks  be  lit,  and  relit,  without  oil  ?  I  agree 
that  "  are  going  out "  is  a  more  correct  rendering  than  the 
ordinary  version  ;  but  it  in  no  way  shows  that  the  virgins  had 
oil,  or  that  they  were  more  than  professors  without  the  Holy 
Ghost,  though  responsible  for  and  designated  according  to  the 
position  they  assumed. 

As  to  the  unconverted  being  called  "  virgins,"  there  is  no 
more  difficulty  there  than  in  the  "  servant "  of  the  preceding  par- 
able. In  either  case  they  took  that  place,  and  were  judged  ac- 
cordingly. There  are  Christians  who  love  Christ's  appearing  in 
the  midst  of  much  ignorance  as  to  its  details.  There  are  pro- 
fessors who  talk  much  of  the  Second  Advent,  and  hold  it  to  be 
premillenniaL  But  I  assuredly  believe  that  the  former,  if  they 
are  alive  and  remain  till  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  will  be  caught 
up  to  meet  Him,  and  that  the  latter,  if  they  abide  unregenerate, 
must  have  their  portion  outside,  where  shall  be  weeping  and 
gnashing  of  teeth. 

As   unfounded  is  the  idea  that  ray/iar/  in  1  Cor.  xv.  23, 


means  "company,"  "band,"  "regiment,"  while  fully  admitting 
of  course  that  such  is  a  frequent  signification  in  profane  authors. 
But  here  the  context  is  decidedly  adverse,  whether  rl  rsXog  be 
applied  to  the  wicked  dead,  or  to  Christians  uninstructed  in  the 
Lord's  second  commgj  and  kingdom.  All  or  most  of  the  versions 
at  all  known  and  accurate  (as  the  Syriac,  Vulgate,  Beza,  Luther, 
De  Wette,  Diodati,  Martin,  Ostervald,  the  Lausanne,  etc.)  seem 
to  agree  with  the  authorised  version  in  giving  "  order."  Indeed, 
the  way  in  which  our  Lord's  resurrection  is  introduced  appears 
to  me  of  itself  to  exclude  such  a  translation ;  for  His  resurrec- 
tion is  the  first  step,  which  perfectly  agrees  with  "  order,"  but 
not  with  "  company."  Again,  such  a  view  necessitates  the  harsh- 
est possible  construction  of  "  the  end "  {rh  riXog)^  which,  by  a 
figure,  must  be  tortured  to  mean  the  good  (or  bad)  who  are  raised 
then  ;  whereas,  in  truth,  it  is  most  plain  that  "  the  end"  is  really 
after  the  kingdom  is  given  up,  and,  h  fortiori,  subsequent  to  all 
judgment.  The  white-throne  judgment  of  the  dead  is  one  of 
the  closing  acts  of  the  kingdom,  after  which  cometh  "  the  end." 
Lastly,  it  would  be  incongruous  to  suppose  that  after  "  they  that 
are  Christ's  "  rise,  another  regiment  of  Christ's  should  remain  to 
rise.  Not  a  class,  but  an  epoch,  is  meant  by  "  the  end  ; "  an 
epoch  subsequent  to  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked  and  their 

•      "  FOR  EVER." 

I  am  of  opinion  that  e/'s  Th  dirivsxsg,  "  for  ever,"  ought  to  be 
construed  in  this  verse,  not  with  T^oasviyxai  dvsiav,  but  with 
ixdOissv  x.T.X.  (i.e.  with  "sat  down").  It  is  not  exactly  a  ques- 
tion of  the  general  sense,  for  there  is  good  sense  either  way  ;  and 
still  less  does  it  turn  upon  Greek  construction,  for  the  words 
might  be  taken  before  or  after  the  verb  or  participle,  as  it  seems 
to  me.  The  real  point  is  the  special  contrast  of  vers.  11,  12. 
Instead  of  offering  oftentimes  the  same  sacrifices,  Christ  has 


offered  once  :  instead  of  standing  daily  ministering  for  man, 
He  has  for  ever  sat  down  at  the  right  of  God.  Of  course  this 
expression,  "  for  ever,"  is  not  absolute,  but  relative  to  the  work 
of  atonement.  He  is  seated  in  perpetuity  before  God,  because 
His  sacrificial  work  is  done  perfectly  for  man.  As  to  the  abuse, 
justly  objected  to,  the  aorist  cuts  off  the  force  which  Papists, 
and  those  who  think  with  them,  might  give  it,  for  where  con- 
tinuous offering  is  intended  the  present  tense  is  employed,  as  in 
verse  1. 



"Galatians  v.  4. — Often  quoted  to  prove  that  Christians  may, 
by  falling  into  sin,  jeopard  the  life  which  they  have  got  in 
Christ.  But  the  text  speaks  of  those  who  had  appeared  to 
receive  the  Gospel  letting  slip  the  grand  foundation  of  God's 
grace  for  ordinances,  or,  in  other  words,  abandoning  the  ground 
oi  faith  for  religiousness. 


Galatians  v.  5.— We  through  the  Spirit  wait  for  the  hope  of  righteous- 
ness by  faith. 

Not  the  hope  of  being  justified  ;  for  by  Christ  all  that 
believe  are  justified  from  all  things.  We  are  not  waiting  for 
righteousness,  for  we  are  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in 
Christ ;  but  we  wait  for  the  hope  which  is  suited  to  such  a 
righteousness,  for  a  glorious  resurrection  or  change,  which  is 
the  only  adequate  complement  of  what  we  have  already  in 

Ephesians  i.  10. — The  "  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times" 
is  often  applied  to  God's  present  work  in  gathering  the  church, 


and  connected  with  Gal.  iv.  4.  But  the  bearing  of  the  two  texts 
is  totally  different.  Gal.  iv.  4  refers  to  Christ  sent  here  below  ; 
Ephes.  i.  10  to  the  administration  which  will  be  in  His  hands 
during  the  Millennium  ;  the  one  a  past  fact,  the  other  future,  and 
both  entirely  distinct  from  the  gathering  of  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
who  believe  in  one  body,  which  is  now  going  on  between  these 
two  points. 

i.  23.—"  The  fulness  of  Him  which  filleth  all  in  all ;"  not  of 
God  the  Father,  which  the  church  is  not  nor  can  be,  but  the 
fulness  or  complement  of  Christ,  viewed  as  the  glorified  heavenly 
man,  whose  body  we  are. 

ii.  20. — Not  Old  Testament  "  prophets"  and  New  Testament 
"  apostles,"  but  "  apostles  and  prophets"  of  the  New  Testament, 
as  is  put  beyond  all  doubt  in  chap.  iii.  5,  "  as  it  is  now  revealed 
unto  His  holy  apostles  and  prophets  by  the  Spirit."  It  is  a  new 
work  built  on  a  new  foundation,  Jew  and  Gentile  being  now 
builded  together  for  a  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit, 
which  was  not  the  case  in  Old  Testament  times. 

iii.  15. — Not  the  whole  family,  as  in  the  English  Bible,  but 
every  family  in  heaven  and  earth,  -^racra  Trare/a,  x.r.X.,  including, 
I  suppose,  all  the  varieties  of  intelligent  creation  in  heaven  and 

iv.  3. — "  The  unity  of  the  Spirit,"  meaning  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  not  merely  of  our  spirit. 

V.  14. — The  Scriptures  alluded  to  seem  to  be  Isa,  Iii.  and  Ix., 
but  the  application  here  is  clearly  to  believers  slumbering 
among  dead  men  or  things,  from  which  they  are  called  to  arise, 
that  Christ  may  give  them  light,  not  life,  which  would  be  their 
first  need  as  unbelievers.  Let  me  add,  that  in  the  parenthetical 
ver.  9  the  true  idea  and  word  is  "  the  fruit  of  light  is  in  all 
goodness,"  etc. 

vi.  2,  3. — St.  Paul  is  not  of  course  neutralising  the  grand 
truth  that  we  are  not  under  law,  but  under  grace.  He  is 
simply  showing  how  specially  God  owned  obedience  to  parents 


among  those  commandments  which  were  addressed  to  the  Jews, 
and  which  held  forth  earthly  blessing  as  their  reward. 

1  Corinthians  ix.  27. — Often  used  to  show  that  no  believer 
ought  to  be  or  can  be  sure  of  ultimate  salvation  :  hence,  as  is 
alleged,  St.  Paul  was  not.  But  it  is  clear  that  the  question  here 
is  not  of  life,  righteousness,  or  salvation,  but  of  services  in  the 
Gospel  and  its  rewards.  Paul  did  not  make  himself  servant 
unto  all,  under  law  to  the  Jew,  without  law  to  the  Gentile,  to 
save  himself,  but  to  save  them.  It  was  for  the  Gospel's  sake, 
not  for  his  own  ;  and  to  this  end  serve  the  figures  of  a  prize  and 
a  crown.  The  word  ah6-A.iiJ.oc,  here  translated  a  "  castaway,"  and 
elsewhere  'reprobate,"  "rejected,"  is  I  think  limited  by  the 
subject-matter.  A  servant  might  by  carelessness  lose  a  reward, 
who  nevertheless  as  a  believer  had  everlasting  life.  See  1  Cor. 
iii.  10-15. 

1  Cor.  xi.  28  ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  5. — Tliese  texts  are  sometimes 
quoted  to  show  that  a  Christian  ought  not  to  be  sure,  or,  as 
men  say,  too  sure  of  his  acceptance  with  God.  But  it  is  evi- 
dent that  tlie  first  was  intended  to  lead  the  Corinthians  to  probe 
their  hearts,  when  disposed  to  deal  lightly  with  the  supper  of 
the  Lord.  No  such  thought  occurs  as  an  exhortation  to  duubt 
God's  grace,  or  their  own  security  thereby.  To  eat  the  bread 
or  drink  the  cup  lightly  without  consideration  of  what  that 
solemn  feast  sets  forth  was  to  deal  unworthily  :  if  one  dis- 
cerned not  the  body,  it  was  to  eat  and  drink  judgment  to  one- 
self, as  was  shown  in  many  cases  of  judicial  sickness  and  death 
among  them.  For  if  Christians  discerned  themselves,  i.e.  the 
hidden  springs  of  their  hearts  and  ways,  they  should  not  be  thus 
judged ;  yet  even  where  they  were,  it  was  the  Lord's  chasten- 
ing, that  they  should  not  be  condemned  with  the  world.  Even 
where  thus  negligent  and  chastened,  neither  does  the  Lord  con- 
found the  Christian,  nor  ought  the  Christian  to  confound  him- 
self, with  the  world.  If  he  does,  the  true  power  of  self-judg- 
ment is  gone.     Still  more  explicit  is  2  Cor.  xiii.  5,  however 


familiarly  used  in  the  school  of  doubt.  For  let  the  context  be 
read,  and  it  will  be  plain  that  Paul  is  proving  his  apostolate  to 
the  Corinthians,  who  were  seeking  a  proof  of  Christ  speaking  in 
him.  "Why,  says  he,  examine  yourselves  :  your  own  selves  are 
the  best  proof.  If  you  are  in  the  faith,  I  must  be  an  apostle — 
at  least  to  you.  (Cf.  1  Cor.  ix.  2,  3.)  The  very  last  thing  which 
these  high-minded  questioners  meant  to  do  was  to  distrust  their 
own  Christianity.  Well,  but,  argues  St.  Paul,  if  you  want  a 
proof  about  me,  know  ye  not  your  own  selves,  how  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  in  you,  except  ye  be  reprobates  ?  Paul  had  no  wish 
to  prove  them  reprobates  ;  but  his  argument  leaves  them  no 
escape.  If  they  were  in  the  faith,  which  neither  they  nor  he 
doubted,  they  proved  his  apostlesliip  :  if  they  were  not,  who 
were  they  to  examine  him  ?  If  verse  4  be  taken  parenthetically, 
the  sense  is  clearer. 

2  Cor.  vi.  1-i. — Be  ye  not  unequally  yoked  together  with 
unbelievers — often  applied  to  marriage  with  unbelievers.  But 
this  is  an  error,  though  it  is  true  that  marriage  ought  to  be 
"  only  in  the  Lord,"  as  is  exhorted  in  1  Cor.  vii.  The  subject 
is  the  ministry  or  service  of  Christ.  In  service  and  worsliip, 
fellowship  is  forbidden  with  unbelievers,  or  unfaithful  men.  If 
I,  a  servant  of  Christ,  am  among  such,  I  am  to  come  out.  What 
confirms  it  is — \sl,  That  a  yoke  is  a  scriptural  badge  of  service, 
not  of  marriage.  2f/,  That  the  believing  wife  is  not  to  be  sepa- 
rate from  her  unbelieving  husband  (1  Cor.  vii.  10-16).  On  the 
other  hand,  the  true  inference  from  2  Cor.  vi.  is  that  all  com- 
munion between  the  Christian  and  the  world,  in  the  service  and 
worship  of  God,  is  interdicted  in  every  form  and  measure. 


The  injunctions  in  Ephes.  iv.  30,  and  Tliess.  v.  19,  do  not 
apply  to  all  men,  but  are  addressed  to  believers   only.      The 


former  warns  those  who  are  sealed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  unto  the 
day  of  redemption  not  to  grieve  Him  ;  the  latter  exhorts  the' 
brethren  to  "  quench  not  the  Spirit ;"  to  "  despise  not  pro- 
phesyings."  It  is  clear  that  the  one  regards  the  saint  in- 
dividually as  to  his  own  walk  with  God  ;  the  other  guards  him 
against  hindering  the  action  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  those  whom 
He  makes  His  mouthpiece.  The  striving  of  God's  Spirit  in 
Gen.  vi.  evidently  refers  to  the  testimony  given  to  the  ante- 
diluvians, and  especially  Noah's  preaching  for  120  years. 
Eesisting  the  Holy  Ghost  is  said  of  the  Jews  :  "  as  your  fathers 
did,  so  do  ye."  It  M-as  shown  in  their  persecution  and  slaughter 
of  the  prophets,  and  crowned  by  their  treachery  against  and 
murder  of  the  Just  One.  With  all  their  boast  about  the  law, 
the  land,  and  the  temple,  they  had  rejected  in  every  age  God's 
testimony  :  "Ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost."  "What  man 
had  done  before  the  deluge,  was  the  dreary  history  of  Israel,  till 
they  stumbled  upon  their  own  Messiah,  refused  Stephen's 
declaration  of  His  heavenly  glory  as  peremptorily  as  they  had 
scorned  his  own  personal  humiliation,  and  thus  turned  that 
which  ought  to  have  been  a  foundation  into  a  stone  of  stumblinf' 
and  rock  of  offence.  But  it  was  not  the  Jew  only  who  was 
guilty.  "  He  was  in  the  world,  and  the  world  knew  Him  not." 
"Now  is  the  judgment  of  this  world  :  now  shall  the  prince  of 
this  world  be  cast  out."  The  personal  coming  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  testifies  of  this.  His  very  presence  in  the  church  on 
earth  convicts  the  world  of  sin,  etc.  i  or  He  came  down,  as  sent 
by  Him  whom  the  world  had  rejected  instead  of  believing  in. 
Of  other  sins  no  doubt  the  world  was  guilty,  but  this  was  the 
great  sin  in  God's  sight.  He  had  sent  His  Son,  and  the  world 
hated  His  Son.  They  had  now  no  cloak  for  their  sin.  Christ, 
rejected  by  man,  glorified  by  God,  sends  down  the  Comforter  to 
be  in  His  own,  and  thus  convicts  all  outside  of  sin  ;  because  if 
they  believed  in  Him,  they  too  would  have  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  passage  does  not  speak  of  what  the  Spirit  produces  in  the 


heart  of  every  one  who  comes  to  a  saving  knowledge  of  God  and 
His  Son.  It  is  rather  the  truth  that  the  presence  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  the  church  proves  all  without  to  be  under  sin  and 
judgment,  because  of  the  rejection  of  Jesus,  whom  God  proclaims 
to  be  the  Eighteous  One,  by  receiving  Him  to  His  own  right 
hand.  May  I  recommend  "  a  well-digested  and  full  reply  on 
this  subject,"  in  a  little  book  entitled  "  Operations  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  "  ?  More  details  still  may  be  found  in  "  Lectures 
on  the  New  Testament  Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 


Exodus  xxxiv.  7. — The  Gospel  plan  of  salvation  is  not  in 
tlie  text,  it  is  really  the  proclamation  of  the  name  of  Jehovah  in 
His  government  of  Israel.  Indeed  it  is  rather  a  j)art  of  that 
which  is  contrasted  in  2  Cor.  iii.  with  the  ministration  of  the 
Spirit  now.  There  was  a  precious  manifestation  of  God's 
goodness  and  long  suffering,  no  doubt ;  but  it  was  in  connection 
with  His  people  still  under  the  law.  Hence,  in  spite  of  all  the 
mercy  displayed,  it  could  only  be  in  result  a  ministration  of  con- 
demnation and  death.  Whereas  the  essence  of  the  Gospel  is, 
that  it  comes  to  the  sinner  on  the  very  ground  that  he  is  lost, 
and  most  expressly  justifies  the  ungodly  :  it  is  a  ministration  of 
righteousness  already  accomplished  on  earth  and  accepted  on 
high.  So  that,  if  the  Holy  Ghost  reveal  to  any  soul  Christ  in 
glory,  that  soul  is  entitled  to  look  up  and  say,  "  There  is  my  life 
and  my  righteousness."  He  is  accepted  in  the  Beloved.  "  If 
that  which  was  done  away  was  glorious,  much  more  that  -VA-hich 
remaineth  is  glorious."  The  two  things  are  so  distinct  tliat  to 
harmonise  is  to  spoil  them  both. 


Eomans  viii.  1. — It  may  help  the  reader  to  bear  in  mind  the 


observation  of  another,  that  the  apostle,  iu  the  beginning  of  this 
ch.apter,  is  alluding  to  and  summing  up  his  previous  reasoning. 
Thus,  verse  1  answers  to  chap.  v.  ;  verse  2  to  chap.  vi.  ;  and 
verse  three  to  chap,  vii ;  as  a  moderate  degree  of  attention  and 
spirituality  may  easily  discern. 

"  Justification  of  life "  is  what  the  first  verse  supposes,  the 
possession  of  a  new  and  risen  life  in  Christ,  to  which  sin  is  not 
and  cannot  be  imputed.  "When  God  sent  forth  His  Son  he  was 
made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem,  etc.  But  now 
that  redemption  is  accomplished  and  Christ  raised  from  the  dead, 
it  is  not  merely  the  holy  life  which  it  always  was,  but  it  is  life  in 
resurrection  after  all  the  question  of  sin  is  settled.  It  is  not 
merely  justification  in  view  of  a  foreseen  work,  nor  a  standing  on 
the  gi'ound  of  promise — the  promise  of  One  who  could  not  lie. 
The  work  is  done,  the  promise  accomplished — all  the  promises 
of  God  yea  and  amen  in  Christ :  according  to  this  is  our 
standinij  as  individual  saints  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  of  this  Eom. 
viii.  treats.  Corporate  union  is  not  discussed  save  in  chap.  xii. 
But  many  of  our  individual  privileges,  as  well  as  our  corporate 
ones,  could  not  have  been  predicated  of  believers  till  Christ  had 
finished  His  work  on  earth  and  sent  down  the  Holy  Ghost  from 
heaven.  I  suppose  (in  spite  of  A  D^  and  some  good  versions 
that  have  m  xara  a.  t.  or  of  D^  E  I  K,  etc.,  for  aXXa  x.  m.)  that 
the  last  clause  was  added  to  guard  the  full  grace  from  verse  4, 
wliere  the  same  words  rightly  occur. 


Ephesians  v.  26. — To  undertand  this  verse  it  must  be  taken 
in  connection  with  what  precedes  and  follows. 

]  1.  Christ  loved  the  church,  and  gave  Himself  for  it.     His 
blessed  work  of  redemption  already  accomplished. 

2.  That  He  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing 
of  water  by  the  word.    His  present  work,  which  the  Holy  Ghost 


makes  good  in  the  church.  Ei/  ^ri/Man  guards  and  explains 
rw  "kovTPU}^  showing  that  it  is  the  power  of  the  word,  and  not  a 
mere  rite.  Compare  John  xv.  "  N'ow  ye  are  clean  through  the 
word  which  I  have  spoken  to  you." 

3.  The  result,  yet  future,  when  He  shall  present  to  Himself 
the  glorious  church,  not  having  spot,  etc. 


Hebrews  xii.  23. — The  phrase  "  general  assembly  "  (^zavr^yu^u) 
is  clearly,  in  my  judgment,  epexegetic  of  the  preceding  words, 
"the  innumerable  company  of  angels,"  just  as,  in  the  clause 
before,  "  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  "  is  a  further  explanation  of 
"the  city  of  the  living  God."  The  conjunction  ?ca/ introduces 
each  new  clause,  which  arrangement  is  destroyed  in  this  par- 
ticular instance,  but  observed  in  all  the  other  parts  of  the 
sentence  in  the  English  Bible.  The  same  confusion  appears  in 
Beza,  Diodati,  the  Dutch,  Martin,  Ostervald,  the  Lausanne,  etc. 
Bengel  rightly  objects  to  this  construction.  "  Nam  et  polysyn- 
deton retinendum  est ;  et  aliorum  sine  dubio  est  panegyris  : 
aliorum,  ecclesia,  quis  enim  conjungeret  synonyma,  panegyris  et 
ecclesia  ?  Ecclesia,  primogenitorum  est ;  panegyris  igitur,  an- 
gelorum."  But  then  he  falls  into  the  mistake  of  making,  not 
only  the  angels,  but  the  church  of  the  first-born  ones  refer  to  the 
myriads,  which  is  equally,  as  it  seems  to  me,  contrary  to  the 
linking  of  each  separate  term  by  the  conjunction,  not  to  speak 
of  other  objections.  The  Syriac  and  Vulgate,  with  those  that 
follow  them,  Luther  and  the  Elberfeld,  avoid  either  error,  and 
give  the  true  sense  with  more  or  less  clearness. 

The  apostle  ascends  from  the  lowest  point  of  millennial  glory 
which  unites  heaven  and  earth,  the  seat  of  royalty  raised  up  in 
pure  grace  (after  Ichabod  was  written  on  Israel,  and  the  king  of 
their  choice  was  slain),  in  contrast  with  Sinai,  which  was  the 
place  and  expression  of  the  nation's  responsibility.     He  then 

BIB  Lie  A  L  A  NNO  TA  TIONS.  3 1 7 

gives,  not  the  earthly  city,  which  was  under  judgment,  but  the 
city   of   the  living   God,   the  heavenly  Jerusalem.     Next  is 
opened  out  the  whole  assembly  (cravr/uf/;-),  myriads  of  angels. 
Then  follows,  as  a  specific  object,  the  church  of  heavenly  heirs, 
in  contrast  with  God's  earthly  first-born   Israel,  which  fully 
displays  grace  in  its  heavenly  character.     After  this  the  Holy 
Ghost  directs  our  eye  to  God  in  his  judicial  capacity— the  Judge 
of  all.   With  this  is  beautifully  connected  "  the  spirits  of  just  men 
made  perfect"  {i.e.  the  Old  Testament  saints).     Next,  we  turn 
to  the  means  of  establishing  the  New  Covenant  with  the  two 
houses  of  Israel,  "Jesus,  the  Mediator  of  the  New  Covenant ;" 
and  lastly,  we  hear  of  "  the  blood  of  sprinkling,"  which  cries  for 
grace  towards  the  earth,  not  vengeance,  as  in  Abel's  case.      To 
this  whole  order  of  things,  which  will  only  be  manifested  in  the 
Millennium,  the  Hebrew    Christians  (and  of  course  the   same 
thing  is  true  of  all  saints  since)  are  said  to  have  come,  i.e.  by 
faith.     Not  to  Sinai  and  its  associations  of  death  and  terror,  but 
to  these  blessed  and  eternal  objects  of  glory  they  stood  related, 
through  the  known  efficacy  of  what  was  accomplished  to  bring 

all  in. 

1  suppose  that  the  perfecting  of  just  men  here  spoken  of  will 
take  place  at  their  resurrection  from  the  dead.  They  are  now 
in  the  condition  of  spirits— a  condition  which  never  will  be  true 
of  the  New  Testament  saints  as  a  class  (for  "  we  shall  not  all 
sleep"),  but,  of  course,  most  applicable  to  those  before  Christ. 
(Compare  Luke  xiii.  32.) 


2  Peter  iii.  18.— I  apprehend  that  ug  ia^oav  al^'jog  is  in  allusion 
to  and  in  contrast  with  "  the  day  of  judgment "  (verse  V),  "  the 
day  of  the  Lord"  or  "  of  God"  (verses  10,  12),  in  the  chapter 
which  the  phrase  closes,  and  that  the  idea  is  the  eternal  day, 
which  succeeds  all  previous  days  of  sin  and  judgment.     The 


words  in  John  vi.  51  (w';  rlv  uima)  are  the  commonest  possible 
expression  of  eternity,  or  "  for  ever,"  whether  absolute  or  relative, 
which  of  course  depends  on  the  context  and  nature  of  the  case. 
See  Matt.  xxi.  19  ;  Mark  iii.  29,  xi.  14;  Luke  i.  55  ;  John  iv. 
14,  vi.  58,  viii.  35,  51,  52,  x.  28,  xi.  26,  xii.  34,  xiii.  8,  xiv.  16  ; 
1  Cor.  viii.  13  ;  2  Cor.  ix.  9  ;  Heb.  vi.  20,  vii.  17,  21,  24,  28  ;  1 
Peter  i.  23,  25  ;  1  John  ii.  17  ;  2  John  2  ;  which  are,  I  think, 
all  the  occurrences  in  the  New  Testament.     E/'s  alum  (in  2  Peter 
ii.  17)  has  been  dropped  by  some  editors,   though  even  they 
admit  the  same  phrase  in  Jude  13.      The  omission  of  the  article 
implies  that  the  phrase  is  characteristic,  i.e.  adjectival  of  the 
sense  ;  and  "  everlasting,"  as  "  for  ever,"  pertains  to  rou  CMToui^ 
rather  than  to  the  verb.      The  plural  form  often  occurs,  as  in 
Pom.  i.  25,  ix.  5,  xi.  36,  xvi.  27  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  31,  etc. ;  or  with 
-xavTug,  as  in  Jude  25  ;  or  yet  more  emphatically  iig  ro-jg  aluvai 
7UV  ataiviuv,  as  in  Gal.  i.  5,  and  often  elsewhere.     The  idea  here  is 
not  so  much  one  unbroken  eternity  (expressed  by  the  singular, 
simple  or  complex,  as  in  Heb.  i.  8),  as  the  constant  succession 
of  age  upon  age,  which  is  pretty  well  given  in  the  English  "  for 
ever  and  ever."      Ephes.  iii.  21  is  the  most  peculiar  of  all ;  for 
yevsds  expresses  ordinarily  human  generations,  roi;  ui!:,vog  of  itself 
would  convey  the  thought  of  an  undivided  everlasting  ;    and 
Tuv  a/uivuv  closes  the  series  with  successive  ages  sweeping  on.   The 
whole  phrase  intimates,  I  suppose,  a  future  beyond  the  bounds 
of  every  measure  of  time.     The  anarthrous  form  i!g  ulumg  aiuimv 
occurs  in  Pev.  xiv.  11  (where,  however,  C.  has  a/wi/a  al^vog),  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  modifies  the  sense  so  far  as  to  present  no 
positive  object  before  the  mind,  as  in  Pev.  xix.  3,  and  simply  in 
this  case  characterises  the  action  of  the  verb. 


Daniel  ix. — I  do  not  think  tliat  there  need  be  difficulty  in 
supplying  the  Scripture  authority,  which  has  been  sought  in 

BIB  Lie  A  L  ANNO  TA  TIONS.  3 '  9 

vaiu,  for  the  break  between  the  last  week  and  its  predecessors. 
In  fact,  the  prophecy  itself  distinctly  furnishes  the  proof.  For 
after  the  details  relative  to  the  periods  of  seven  and  of  sixty-two 
weeks,  in  verses  25,  26,  and  the  plain  statement,  that  after  these 
times  were  completed  the  Messiah  should  be  cut  off  and  have 
nothing  {i.e.  of  His  proper  kingdom  and  rights,  as  far  as  the 
nations  were  concerned),  the  prophet  goes  on  to  describe  the 
retributive  days  of  vengeance  which  fell  upon  the  city  and  the 
sanctuary  through  the  Eoman  people  (or  "the  people  of  the  prince 
that  shall  come").  Now,  it  is  clear,  that  here  we  have  events 
which  took  place  about  forty  years  after  the  crucifixion,  and  yet 
entirely  apart  from  the  seventy  weeks,  save  that  they  necessarily 
occurred  after  sixty-nine  had  run  their  course.  But  if  they  form 
no  part  of  the  previous  chain,  as  shown  by  the  prophecy,  with 
equal  certainty  are  they  outside  from  and  before  the  last  or 
seventieth  week,  which  presupposes  the  Jewish  polity  re-estab- 
lished in  some  sort,  and  the  sanctuary  not  only  rebuilt  but  in 
actual  use  once  more,  though  doomed  again  to  see  greater 
abominations  than  before.  I  am  confident,  therefore,  that  the 
Scripture  authority  of  Dan.  ix.  is,  beyond  reasonable  doubt, 
against  those  who  make  the  seventieth  week  to  be  in  immediate 
sequence  with  the  preceding  sixty-nine,  and  that  the  passage 
itself,  without  going  further,  requires  us  to  leave  room  for  (not 
merely  the  past  Eoman  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  but)  a  pro- 
longed series  of  wars  and  desolations  of  indefinite  duration, 
which  has  been  thus  far  too  truly  accomplished  ;  subsequently 
to  this,  in  verse  27,  we  have  the  brief  but  vivid  picture  of  the 
last  week  ushered  in  by  a  compact  or  covenant  made  between 
the  last  Roman  prince  ("the  prince  that  shall  come")  and  the 
mass  of  the  Jews  ;  then,  in  the  midst  of  the  week,  a  stop  put  to 
their  sacrificial  worship,  idols  protected,  and  a  desolator  inflicted 
upon  them,  and  this  till  the  consummation  and  the  decreed 
sentence  be  poured  upon  the  desolate.  Thenceforward  should 
the  tide  turn,  through  the  presence  and  power  of  their  Deliverer, 


once  rejected  but  now  returning  in  glory,  not  only  to  destroy 
this  antagonist  Eoman  sovereign  with  all  his  instruments  and 
followers,  Jewish  or  Gentile,  but  to  apj^ly  to  Israel,  as  such,  all 
the  predicted  blessings  of  the  new  covenant.  For  such  was  the 
intimation  of  verse  24 :  "  Seventy  weeks  are  determined  upon 
thy  (Daniel's)  people  and  upon  thy  holy  city  (the  question  being 
about  the  Jews,  and  not  the  church),  to  finish  the  transgression, 
and  to  make  an  end  of  sins,"  etc.  Accordingly,  I  think  it  de- 
monstrable that  all  which  God  has  been  doing  for  and  in  His 
heavenly  people  since  the  cross  is  here  entirely  and  advisedly 
passed  by ;  and  this  is,  no  doubt,  what  is  meant  by  "  the  paren- 
thetical dispensation  of  the  church."  It  may  be  added  that 
this  view  of  a  detached  seventieth  week,  reserved  for  the  horrors 
of  the  future  antichristian  crisis,  can  in  no  way  be  objected  to 
on  the  score  of  novelty,  save  by  the  ignorant :  it  is  really  the 
oldest  interpretation  that  I  know  on  record  among  the  early 
Christian  writers.      Thus  writes  St.  Hippolytus  in  the  third 

century  :  "  Twi/  yag  s^^xovra  Suo  s^dofjbdduv  'xXrjPOjdsiaCjv  xal  X^/ffroD 
"rapaysvo/Mif/ov,  xai  roD  ivayyeXi'ou  \v  'Trdvri  t6-tu)  x^^ovyS'ivrog,  h/.y.ivudhrwj 
rCiv  KaiPCbv,  i^'ia  i^So/xag  TipXiKpd^ffSTai  r,  \sya.77i  \v  ^  '^ra^ssrai  'HXi'ag,  ^'Ev'S)-^,  zal  sv  rtp  y)/jbiffsi  aWrii  avafawiiorai  rh  (Sd;Xvy/Ma  rr,i  bjj/xwffsw;, 
sug  b  ' AvTiy^PiSTog  ss^/xwff/v  rw  y.og/Muj  xarayyiXXuv,  x.  r.  X."  For  when 
the  sixty-two  weeks  have  been  fulfilled,  and  Christ  has  come, 
and  the  gospel  has  been  everywhere  preached,  the  times  having 
been  consummated,  there  shall  be  left  one  week — the  last — in 
which  Elias  shall  be  present,  and  Enoch  ;  and  in  the  half  of  it 
shall  appear  the  abomination  of  desolation,  etc. 


"Without  pretending  to  say  what  is  meant  by  the  expression 
"human  kingdom,"  most  readers  will  agree  that,  besides  the 
sense  in  which  Christ  shall  reign  for  ever,  there  is  a  definite 
kingdom  over  all  people,  nations,  and  languages,  a  kingdom 
heavenly  in  its  source,  earthly  in  its  sphere  (though  not  earthly 


only),  which  is  yet  future,  and  to  last  for  1000  years.  It  is  this 
which,  I  presume,  tlie  Querist  meant  by  Christ's  "  human  king- 
dom," to  be  ushered  in  by  His  personal  advent.  It  has"  a 
mediatorial  character,  and  will  cease  after  the  judgment  of  the 
wicked  dead  is  over.  When  the  eternal  state  begins  (or  the  new 
heavens  and  earth  in  the  fullest  and  final  sense),  the  human 
holding  of  this  kingdom  is  to  cease  (1  Cor.  xv.),  tliat  God 
(Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost)  may  be  all  in  all.  Christ,  as 
man,  having  held  this  special  kingdom  for  purposes  of  subjec- 
tion, and  having  put  down  all  other  authority,  gives  it  up,  that 
the  power  may  be  God's,  as  such,  exclusively.  Our  reigning  in 
life,  reigning  for  ever  and  ever,  is  not  to  be  limited  to  the 
millennial  kingdom.  As  possessors  of  eternal  life  and  rejoicing 
in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God,  we  shall  reign  in  everlasting 
blessedness,  when  the  millennial  display  before  this  world  is 


Leviticus  xiv. — AVhile  unfeignedly  believing  that  all  Scripture 
is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable,  I  may  suggest 
the  need  of  a  careful  comparison  of  the  fresh  light  of  the  New 
Testament  in  lifting  the  veil  of  the  Old.  Thus  it  seems  to  me 
that  due  consideration  of  Ephes.  ii.  and  Heb.  iii.  would  suggest 
the  idea  that  "the  house"  finds  its  antitype  in  the  corporate 
aspect  or  assembly  of  believers  now,  rather  than  in  the  millennial 
condition  of  the  earth.  "  Ye  are  builded  together,"  etc.  ;  "  whose 
house  are  we,"  etc.  Hence  all  is  plain.  A  plague  spot  may  now 
show  itself  in  the  Christian  assembly.  There  is  diligent,  pains- 
taking, but  patient  inquiry.  The  diseased  stones  are  removed, 
the  application  of  which  is  obvious.  If  the  plague  still  over- 
spread, after  all  means  are  used  in  vain,  the  house  must  be 
given  up  ;  for  the  deliberate  sanction  and  maintenance  of  evil 
deprives  an  assembly  of  its  public  Christian  character.     The 



mention  of  Canaan  is  no  difficulty,  because,  in  virtue  of  union 
with  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  who  believe  are,  even  now, 
seated  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ.  Our  ToX/Veu/za  (citizenship) 
is  in  heaven. 


Daniel. — 1.  "  The  king,"  in  Dan.  xi.  36,  is,  without  doubt  to 
my  mind,  the  political  side  of  the  same  person  whom  St.  John 
designates  religiously  or  irreligiously  as  "  the  Antichrist."  It  is 
clear  from  Daniel  that  his  seat  of  power  is  "  the  Holy  Land," 
the  object  of  attacks  at  the  close  from  the  powers  of  the  South 
and  of  the  North  {i.e.  Egypt,  and  Syria  or  Turkey  of  our  days). 
However,  his  destruction  is  reserved  for  the  Lord  Himself, 
appearing  from  heaven  (2  Thess.  ii.  8  ;  Eev.  xix.  20).  It  is  of 
the  Syrian  power  (whoever  then  may  hold  it)  that  the  last  verses 
of  Dan.  xi.  speak.  He  also  falls  by  Divine  judgment  (see  Dan. 
viii.  25,  xi.  45). 

2.  The  relation  of  Daniel  to  the  Eevelation  is  a  wide  subject; 
but  this  I  may  briefly  say,  that,  as  Daniel  reveals  the  results  of 
the  failure  of  the  earthly  people  Israel,  so  Eevelation  presents 
the  consequences  of  the  failure  of  the  heavenly  testimony 
throughout  Christendom  and  the  world  at  large.  This  remark 
may  help  to  show  the  analogy  and  the  difference  between  the 
two  prophecies.  What  the  former  was  to  the  Jew,  the  latter  is 
to  the  church. 


John  XV.  4. — I  do  not  think  that  living  union  with  Christ  is 
here  spoken  of,  because  verse  2  speaks  of  branches  in  Him  not 
bearing  fruit,  which  cannot  be  where  Christ  is  the  life.  Compare 
also  verse  6,  which,  if  living  union  were  in  question,  would  con- 
tradict the  everlasting  life  which  the  believer  has.     There  is 


some  analogy  thus  far  with  Eom.  xi.,  the  olive-tree  of  testimony 
on  earth,  as  the  vine  is  of  profession.  Of  course,  in  both  cases, 
the  saints  are  h'ving  branches  ;  but  there  are  other  branches 
which  are  broken  off.  Oneness  with  Christ,  as  members  of  His 
body,  depends  on  tlie  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  which  was  unknown 
before  Pentecost. 


Joshua  V.  9. — With  the  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  the 
Ephesians  before  us,  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  wars,  of  Israel 
have  their  answer  iu  our  wrestling  with  the  powers  of  darkness  ; 
that  the  gradual  acquisition  of  their  land  corresponds  with  our 
setting  our  affections  on  the  things  above,  where  Christ  sitteth; 
and  that  we  too  have  our  circumcision,  first  in  Christ,  in  whom 
the  flesh  has  met  its  doom  ;  and,  secondly,  in  the  practical  way 
of  mortifying  our  members  which  are  upon  the  earth,  etc.  To 
neglect  these  cross-lights  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  is  to 
despise,  unwittingly,  the  means  of  heavenly  wisdom. 


Acts  xvii.  "0. — It  is  evident  that  the  point  of  which  St. 
Paul  avails  himself  in  order  to  reach  the  conscience  of  the 
Athenians  is  their  own  confessed  ignorance  of  God  (verse  23). 
"  The  times  of  this  ignorance  God  winked  at."  But  now  St. 
Paul  was  declaring  to  them  the  God  whom  they  knew  not. 
The  true  God  shines  out  in  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 
Not  to  receive  what  is  proclaimed  therein  is  to  reject  the 
counsel  of  God  against  oneself  Heathenism  was  essentially 
wrong  ;  at  the  best  it  represented  God  as  an  hard  master,  as  one 
(if  one)  who  needed  all  that  man  could  muster,  instead  of 
allowing  Him  the  blessed  place  of  the  Giver,  which  even  crea- 
tion and  providence  proved  Him  to  be,  and  much  more  redemp- 


Accordingly,  as  the  full  light  of  God  is  shining  the  world 
over  like  the  sun,  and  the  sound  of  the  Gospel  is  published  in 
all  the  earth  (in  principle  I  mean),  man  is  without  excuse. 
For  his  case  is  not  merely,  like  Israel's,  failure  under  legal 
requirement,  but  the  despisal  of  the  full  and  free  grace  of  God, 
who  is  now  commanding  all  men  everywhere  to  repent,  to  turn 
from  their  idols  and  their  self-righteousness,  from  themselves  in 
short  to  Him,  and  what  He  has  demonstrated  Himself  to  be  in 
Christ  towards  the  worst  of  sinners.  To  refuse  is  not  merely  to 
lose  His  everlasting  mercy,  it  is  also  to  brave  His  righteous 
judgment  of  this  habitable  world,  for  Christ  is  by  Him  ordained 
to  judge  it  (and  not  only  the  dead  raised  before  the  great  white 
throne),  of  which  His  resurrection  is  the  proof.  The  world 
slew  Him  and  God  raised  Him  up,  the  sure  proof  that  it  is 
morally  judged  already,  as  it  actually  will  be  when  Christ  comes 
in  the  clouds  of  heaven.  Up  to  Christ's  first  advent,  and  espe- 
cially His  resurrection,  the  Gentiles  lay  hid,  as  it  were,  as  to 
public  relations  with  God.  Salvation  was  of  the  Jews.  Christ's 
resurrection  is  a  groundwork  for  faith  unto  all,  Gentile  as  well 
as  Jew,  for  death  cuts  all  specialties  in  the  flesh.  Hence  the 
special  call  to  repent  ever  since  ;  always  obligatory,  repentance 
is  now  urgent.  So  as  to  the  day  for  judging  the  habitable  world : 
the  preached  resurrection  of  Christ,  who  is  about  to  judge  it, 
puts  men  under  fresh  responsibility. 


Deuteronomy  xxxii.  8. — The  truth  tauglit  is  plainly  con- 
firmed by  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  Israel  is  God's 
earthly  centre,  around  whom  the  nations  are  yet  to  revolve, 
when  the  Messiah  takes  His  kingdom  here  below  ;  for  the  Jews 
(not  the  church,  which  has  higlier  hopes)  are  the  objects  of 
God's  counsels,  as  regards  the  earth  and  the  nations. 



There  are  not  wanting  those  who  reject  the  commonly  re- 
ceived opinion  that  St.  Paul  wrote  this  epistle.  It  may  therefore  be 
interesting  to  look  at  the  historic  proof  of  Paul  being  the  writer. 

There  are  several  particulars  relating  to  the  personal  history 
of  the  writer : — 

1.  He  was  not  one  of  our  Lord's  disciples,  and  probably  did 
not  know  Christianity  tiU  after  our  Lord's  ascension  (Heb.  ii.  3). 
St.  Paul  we  know  was  converted  after  the  ascension  of  our  Lord. 
(Acts  ix.) 

2.  The  epistle  was  written  from  Italy  (xiii.  24).  Paul  was 
in  Italy  for  some  time. 

3.  The  writer  mentions  some  hindrance  which  prevented  his 
leaving  Italy  (xiii.  19).  This  agrees  with  what  we  know  of  Paul, 
whowas  in  prison  there  (2  Tim.  i.  16). 

4  The  writer  desired  the  prayers  of  his  brethren  for  the  re- 
moval of  this  hindrance  (xiii.  19).  This  is  conformable  to  the 
custom  of  Paul  in  his  other  epistles  (Rom.  xv.  30  ;  Ephes.  vi.  19). 

5.  The  writer  knew  of  Timothy's  release  from  prison.  Paul 
mentions  this  in  1  Tim.  vi.  12. 

6.  Timothy  was  not  with  the  writer  in  Italy,  but  was  shortly 
expected  (xiii.  23).  This  agrees  with  what  we  know  of  the 
situation  of  Paul  when  in  prison  (2  Tim.  iv.  9). 

7.  The  writer  looked  forward  to  travelling  with  Timothy 
to  visit  the  Hebrew  Christians.  Timothy  was  Paul's  constant 
companion  in  traveL 

Here,  then, are  several  particulars  respecting  the  writer  of  the 
epistle,  all  of  which  agree  with  what  we  know  of  the  history  of 
St.  Paul,  but  do  not  suit  with  what  is  known  of  any  other 
eminent  New  Testament  saint.  It  is  highly  improbable  there- 
fore that  any  other  New  Testament  writer  but  Paul  wrote  this 

Further :  to  none  of  the  assigned  writers  do  all  the  circum- 


stances  here  noted  suit,  as  far  as  we  are  acquainted  with  their 
histories.  We  know  not  that  ApoUos  or  Barnabas  was  ever  in 
Eome,  or  suffered  imprisonment  there  for  the  truth's  sake. 
Luke  and  Clemens  were  in  Eome,  but  we  have  no  information 
of  their  having  been  imprisoned  there ;  and  further,  neither 
were  Jews  (Col.  iv.  11,  14),  which  it  is  probable  the  writer  of 
this  epistle  was.  In  the  absence  of  certainty,  there  is  evidence 
enough,  from  the  personal  remarks  of  the  writer,  to  lead  us  to 
the  conclusion  that  Paul  wrote  this  epistle.  [2  Pet.  iii.  15  seems 
to  me  decisive  that  Paul  wrote  to  the  Jewish  saints  ;  and  this 
of  course  is  no  other  than  "  Hebrews." — Ed^ 


Isaiah  xviii.  7. — 1.  "The  land  shadowing  with  wings,  which 
(is)  beyond  the  rivers  of  Cush,"  means,  I  think,  a  country  outside 
the  limits  of  those  nations  which  up  to  the  prophet's  time  had 
menaced  Israel ;  a  country  beyond  Assyria  and  Babylon,  which 
were  contiguous  to  one  of  these  rivers  and  beyond  Egypt,  which 
lay  along  the  other.  For  Scripture  connects  Cush  with  these 
two  districts,  if  not  with  more  :  an  Asiatic  as  well  as  an  African 
Ethiopia.  The  meaning  is,  then,  a  land  which  should  essay  to 
protect  the  long-oppressed  Jew,  and  that  land  beyond  those 
rivers  which  characterised  the  great  powers  which  hitherto  were 
best  known  to  and  had  most  interfered  with  Israel 

2.  It  was  not  only  a  distant  but  a  maritime  power  ("  sending 
ambassadors  by  the  sea  ").  "  Vessels  of  bulrushes  "  looks  more 
like  Egypt  than  anything  else  in  the  chapter,  but  it  cannot  out- 
weigh the  other  evidence.  Perhaps  others  may  throw  light  on 
the  phrase.  The  burden  of  Egypt  foUows,  and  is  expressly 
named  in  the  succeeding  chapter.     Here  the  name  is  withheld. 

3.  It  is  distinguished  in  the  plainest  way  from  the  nation  in 
whose  behalf  it  employs  its  vessels  and  swift  messengers.  I 
cannot  therefore  but  think  those  commentators  far  astray  who 


interpret  the  land  in  verse  1,  and  the  people  to  whom  the 
message  is  sent  in  verse  2,  of  Egypt  and  the  Egyptians.  Happily 
here  the  question  depends  not  on  mere  verbal  criticisms,  but  on 
the  general  bearing  of  the  context,  which  the  English  reader  is 
quite  capable  of  judging. 

4  There  is  no  doubt  on  either  side  that  the  same  people  to 
whom  the  messengers  are  sent  are  described  in  the  latter  part  of 
verse  2,  as  well  as  in  verse  7.  The  words  which  characterise 
them  are  certainly  open,  in  their  force  and  translation,  to  a  good 
deal  of  dispute.  Few,  however,  will  be  disposed  to  accept  the 
notion  that  ^'^pp  =  "  harnessed  in  leather,"  w^hich  has  not  the 
least  support  from  elsewhere.  It  is  used  in  Pro  v.  xiii.  12,  of 
hope  prolonged  or  deferred.  Other  forms  of  tlie  same  word 
occur  frequently  in  the  Bible,  and  mean  to  draw  (literally  or 
figuratively),  stretch  out,  continue.  Gesenius  gives  it  here  the 
sen~se  of  duraturus,  rohustus,  which  seems  to  me  not  to  harmonise 
with  the  conjoined  word.  The  English  translators  may  have 
given  the  force  of  "scattered"  from  the  fact  that  the  kal  parti- 
ciple (poel)  means  "him  that  sowetli"  (marg.  draweth  forth)  seed 
in  Amos  ix.  13.  I  rather  think  the  term  alludes  to  the  long 
trials  and  painful  suspense  of  the  Jews,  and  this  seems  con- 
firmed by  \2-\\J2\  "and  peeled"  or  made  bare,  rather  than 
"shaven;"  for,  in  such' an  application,  the  word  is  used  only 
of  cases  where  the  hair  w\as  fallen  off  (Lev.  xiii.  40,  41),  or  for- 
cibly plucked  off  (Ezra  ix.  3  j  Nehem.  xiii.  25  ;  Isaiah  1.  6). 
The  sense  of  "  peeling "  the  shoulder  occurs  in  Ezek.  xxix.  19, 
which  would  yield  the  same  figurative  sense,  the  latter  being 
taken  from  the  skin  as  the  former  from  the  hair.  "Furbished" 
or  polished  is  the  general  sense  when  spoken  of  the  sword, 
metals,  etc.,  and  Gesenius  thence  derives  the  tropical  meaning 
which  he  assigns  to  the  word  here,  "  populus  acer  h.  e.  celer, 
vehemens  ;"  a  higlily  improbable  turn  in  my  opinion.  The 
general  bearing  of  the  next  clause  remains  undisturbed.  What 
follows  is  literally  "  a  nation  of  a  line,  a  line,"  which  Dathe 


connected,  I  presume,  with  Isaiah  xxviii.  10,  and  our  transla- 
tors with  chap,  xxviii.  17  ;  xxxiv.  11,  17  ;  and  Lam.  ii.  8.  Either 
of  these,  and  the  last  particularly,  I  consider  preferable  to  the 
far-fetched  allusion  to  land-measuring,  which,  it  will  be  observed, 
causes  some  to  change  "  nation "  into  the  "  country  '  meted 
out ;' "  which  is  the  more  surprising  and  inconsistent,  because 
in  the  sentence  before  it  was  justly  remarked  that  it  was  the 
people,  not  the  country.  The  same  term  ""la  is  used  in  both 
cases.  I  have  no  doubt  whatever  that  npupi  "if?"1i5  describes  not 
their  vast  strength,  trampling  down  all  before  it  (as  Gesenius 
will  have  it),  but  rather  their  obnoxiousness  to  every  form  of 
hostile  appropriation  and  indignity.  (Compare  Isaiah  xxii.  5  ; 
xxviii.  4)  This  is  confirmed  and  determined  by  the  last  words 
of  the  verse,  whether  we  adopt  the  textual  rendering  or  the 
margin  of  the  English  Bible,  or  even  Gesenius's  theory  of 
"cleaving,"  which  he  finds,  though  to  my  mind  with  slight 
show  of  evidence,  in  the  word.  Still  any  of  these  seem  to  me 
incomparably  better  than  a  fancied  allusion  to  "inundation," 
which  has  really  nothing  to  favour  it,  any  more  than  the  fancy 
that  the  previous  words  refer  to  the  practice  of  sending  pigs  or 
goats  to  tread  down  the  seed  under  their  feet.  I  hope  to  be 
pardoned  for  considering  them  both  an  unlawful  importation 
into  this  text.  All  these  mistakes  flow  out  of  the  first  great 
error  of  treating  the  people  under  debate  as  the  Egyptians. 
To  this  I  may  add  that  "i^VO  ("beyond")  is  made  to  mean  "on 
this  side,"  quite  untenably,  though  at  fii'st  sight  there  might 
seem  more  reason  for  it,  especially  in  the  English  Bible.  How- 
ever, there  is  no  space  here  to  trace  in  what  circumstances  the 
word  is  susceptible  of  that  force.  I  can  only  say  that  "  beyond," 
as  it  is  the  natural,  so  here  seems  to  me  the  true  meaning.  It 
is  only  in  very  special  cases  that  we  can  give  the  other  rendering, 
and  the  reason  must  be  shown  before  it  can  be  assumed. 

5.  As  regards  the  intervening  verses,  3-6,  all  are  summoned 
to  see  and  hear  what  befalls  the  people  of  the  Lord,  Israel.     He, 


as  it  were,  retires,  and  watches.  Man  is  active.  The  Jews, 
brought  back  by  human  intervention,  seem  to  flourish ;  but 
suddenly,  "  afore  the  harvest,"  all  is  arrested,  and  disappoint- 
ment comes.  The  nations  turn  once  more  against  the  Jews. 
"  They  shall  be  left  together  unto  the  fowls  of  the  mountains, 
and  to  the  beasts  of  the  earth."  Compare  the  chapter  before, 
especially  verses  9-14. 

6.  "In  that  time  shall  the  present  be  brought  unto  the 
Lord  of  Hosts  of  a  people  scattered  and  peeled,  and  from  a 
people  terrible  from  their  beginning  hitherto  ;  a  nation  meted 
out  and  trodden  under  foot,  whose  land  the  rivers  have  spoiled, 
to  the  place  of  the  name  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  the  Mount  Zion." 
— Here,  waiving  the  question  of  the  terms  repeated  from  verse 
2,  and  already  discussed,  I  think  the  English  version  is  more 
accurate  than  most  others.  For  there  are  in  verse  7  not  two 
peoples,  but  two  things  taught  about  Israel ;  that  a  present 
should  be  made  (1)  of  them,  and  (2)  from  them,  to  Jehovah  of 
Hosts.  The  Jewish  nation  should  be  brought  a  present,  and 
they  should  also  bring  one  to  the  Lord  in  Mount  Zion,  after 
their  signal  deliverance  from  the  furv  of  the  Gentiles. 


Matthew  xvi.  28. —  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  application  of 
these  words  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  entirely  un- 
founded, and  that  their  true  connection  is  witli  the  scene  of  the 
transfiguration.  They  are  consecutive  in  all  three  of  the  first 
evangelists  ;  and  2  Peter  i.  treats  that  scene,  it  appears  to  me, 
as  a  manifestation  of  Christ's  power  and  coming, — a  sample  of 
His  future  glory.  James  and  Peter  did  taste  of  death,  the  one 
long,  and  the  other  shortly  before  Jerusalem  was  destroyed. 

Dean  Alford  is  not  correct  in  making  ^  yina  aZrri  =  "  this 
I'ace,"  because  the  race  of  Israel  is  not  to  pass  away  when  all 
these  things  are  fulfilled  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  Israel  is  then 


to  reach  its  full  blessing  and  glory  as  a  people  here  below.  The 
true  force  is,  "  this"  (Christ-rejecting,  unbelieving)  "generation 
of  Israel,"  not  the  mere  existing  generation,  but  such  as  bore  the 
same  moral  fruits  as  those  Avho  then  refused  the  Messiah,  So 
they  have  continued,  and  will,  till  after  the  last  delusions  and 
judgment  of  Antichrist,  when  "  there  shall  come  out  of  Sion 
the  deliverer,  and  shall  turn  away  ungodliness  from  Jacob." 
"  So  all  Israel  shall  be  saved,"  when  every  threat  of  God  has 
been  accomplished,  and  grace  has  converted  a  new  generation — 
"  the  generation  to  come."  The  moral  bearing  of  the  phrase, 
permit  me  to  add,  simply  and  satisfactorily  accounts  for  God's 
righteous  judgment,  in  consequence  of  the  blood  shed  from  Abel 
downwards.  Dean  A.'s  remark  is  sound  against  the  application 
of  it  to  the  mere  existing  generation  ;  but  it  almost  equally  dis- 
proves his  own  sense.  Those  who  stood  in  the  place  of  witness 
for  God,  as  did  Israel,  not  only  suffered  the  consequences  of 
despising  His  last  testimony  to  them  in  Christ,  but  had  required 
of  them  all  the  righteous  blood  shed  from  the  beginning  down- 
wards.  The  same  principle  applies  to  Babylon  in  the  Eevela- 
tion  :  "  In  her  was  found  the  blood  of  prophets,  and  of  saints, 
and  of  all  that  were  slain  upon  the  earth."  In  consequence  of 
the  position  assumed,  God  will  hold  her  responsible  even  for 
evil  done  before  her  existence.  It  is  the  principle  of  God's  cor- 
porate judgments.     Individually,  each  bears  his  own  judgment. 


Pionians  v.  15-17. — No  exposition  of  this  passage  whicli  I 
have  seen  has  appeared  to  me  quite  satisfactory.  INIy  opinion 
is,  that  every  one  of  these  verses  contains  a  separate  thought, 
which  is  fitted,  by  its  position  and  progression,  to  magnify  the 
grace  of  God.  The  apostle  is  illustrating  the  leading  truth  of 
the  Christian  system,  justification  by  divine  righteousness  accom- 
plished in  Christ ;  and,  in  order  to  establish  conclusively  the  gra- 


tiiitous  nature  of  it,  be  draws  his  illustration  from  the  way  in 
which  we  became  guilty,  viz.  by  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin. 
As  we  are  reckoned  by  God,  and  treated,  as  in  fact  guilty  per- 
sons, before  we  do  anything  personally  to  involve  us  in  guilt, 
so  we  are  reckoned  by  God  as  righteous  persons,  and  are  treated 
as  such,  before  we  do  anything  to  make  us  righteous.  There  is 
thus  a  striking  analogy  or  resemblance  between  guilt  and  grace 
— the  fall  and  the  restoration.  But  the  apostle  begins  to  show, 
at  verse  15,  that  this  analogy  does  not  hold  in  all  respects  : 
"  But  not  as  the  offence  so  also  is  the  free  gift."  This  he  does 
by  showing  that  the  side  of  the  parallel  formed  by  materials 
drawn  from  the  new  and  gracious  dispensation  is  the  broader, 
deeper,  and  more  outstanding  and  noticeable.  It  illustrates 
grace  superabounding  and  triumphing  over  guilt  in  three  parti- 
culars :  1.  In  its  provision  (verse  15)  ;  2.  In  its  communication 
(verse  16) ;  and  3.  In  its  consummation  (verse  17). 

1.  The  Source. — Verse  15  points  us  to  the  fountain-head  or 
source  of  sin  and  righteousness  ;  of  guilt  and  grace.  There  is 
evidently  a  comparison  of  stocks  or  stores  in  this  verse  ;  and 
grace  gets  a  triumph' over  guilt  when  we  look  to  Jesus,  in  whom, 
as  in  a  storehouse,  all  fulness  of  it  dwells.  If  we  are  condemned 
for  the  sin  of  Adam,  a  mere  creature  like  ourselves,  shall  we  not 
much  more  be  justified  by  grace  for  the  sake  of  the  Divine  One, 
Jesus,  who  is  "  full  of  grace  and  truth  "?  If  natural  connection 
with  the  creature  has  brought  us  so  much  evil,  much  more  shall 
spiritual  connection  "vvith  the  God-man,  Jesus  Christ,  bring  us 

2.  Tlie  Communication. — Verse  16  shows  that  the  communi- 
cation of  grace  far  exceeds  the  communication  of  guilt.  Adam 
shares  what  is  his  with  his  race,  so  Christ  shares  what  belongs 
to  Him  with  His  seed  ;  but  the  righteousness  which  believers 
enjoy  in  Him  covers  far  more  than  the  guilt  they  inherit 
from  Adam,  for  by  Christ  we  are  justified  not  only  from  the 
guilt  of  this  one  sin,  but  also  from  the  aggravated  guilt  which 


we  have  contracted  by  our  "  many  offences,"  ix.  all  our  sins. 
Besides,  we  were  involved  in  Adam's  guilt  by  generic  necessity; 
we  are  put  in  possession  of  righteousness  in  Christ  as  "  a  free 
and  gracious  gift." 

3,  The  CoTisv/fnmation. — Verse  17.  Here  we  have  the  rich 
excess  of  grace  over  guilt  in  its  consummation,  or  in  what  it 
will  do  for  believers  when  communicated  to  them  and  possessed 
by  them.  The  point  contained  in  this  verse  is  this  :  If  all 
connected  with  Adam  are  made  subject  to  death  for  his  one 
offence,  much  more  shall  all  connected  witli  Christ  (who  receive 
abundance  of  grace  and  of  the  gift  of  justification)  not  only  have 
their  original  condemnation  to  death  removed,  but  also  reign  in 
life  with  Him,  on  account  of  His  obedience  even  unto  death, 
and  his  resurrection,  as  tlieir  representative  and  living  head, 
to  the  enjoyment  of  an  endless  life.  Their  connection  with 
Jesus  not  only  frees  them  from  death,  but  it  gives  them  a  right 
to  life,  not  only  here,  but  in  the  glorious  kingdom  to  come : 
"  Being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  by  His  life."  He  is  now 
possessed  of  an  ever-during  life  in  resurrection,  and  all  believers 
are  sharers  with  Him  in  tliis  life,  for  "  He  that  believeth  on  the 
Son  hath  everlastinf^  life."  Just  as  death  began  in  Adam  the 
moment  he  sinned,  so  life  begins  in  believers  the  moment  they 
believe  in  Christ :  "  God  hath  given  unto  us  eternal  life,  and 
this  life  is  in  His  Son."  And  as  the  time  is  fast  approaching 
when  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  who  once  suffered  for  sins,  shall 
return  to  reign,  all  His  saints  shall  then  reigu  in  life  with  Him: 
"  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive." 
"  Thou  hast  redeemed  us,  and  made  us  unto  our  God  kings  and 
priests,  and  we  shall  reign  on  the  earth." 

The  analogy  being  thus  explained,  limited,  and  illustrated, 
the  apostle  resumes  his  argument,  and  sums  up  the  whole  matter 
in  verses  18  and  19,  which  contain  his  main  position,  which,  in 
nearly  the  words  of  these  verses,  may  be  thus  stated  : — "  As  by 
one  offence  of  one  all  connected  with  that  one  are  condemned  ; 


so  by  the  accomplished  righteousness  of  one  all  connected  with 
Him  have  '  justification  of  life.'  For  as  by  the  disobedience  of 
the  one  (the  representative)  the  many  (the  represented)  were  con- 
stituted sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  the  one  (the  representa- 
tive) will  the  many  (the  represented)  be  constituted  righteous." 
I  should  be  glad  to  see  the  above  passage  in  Eomans 
thoroughly  examined  by  you  and  your  correspondents.  It  is 
one  of  the  most  vital,  seeing  that  it  forms  the  keystone  of  the 
gateway  of  grace.  [See  a  paper  by  another  writer  at  p.  348. 

John  xxi.  15-17. — I  do  not  think  that  the  student  will  get  much 
satisfaction  by  reading  the  remarks  of  the  late  Dean  Alford  on  this 
affecting  scene.  There  is  more,  perhaps,  in  what  the  Archbishop 
of  Dublin,  Dr.  Trench,  has  observed  in  his  New  Testament 
Synonyms.  But  the  true  difference  seems  to  me  much  more  simple 
than  either  of  these  gentlemen  apprehend.  'Ayazdu  is  the  broad, 
generic  term  for  loving.  It  is  susceptible  of  all  applications,  of 
superiors,  inferiors,  and  equals.  It  is  predicated  of  God  towards 
man,  and  of  man  towards  God.  It  describes  God's  feeling 
towards  the  world  in  giving  His  only  begotten  Son.  It  describes 
Christ's  tender  and  full  affection  towards  the  church.  On  the 
other  hand,  ^/Xew  is  a  narrower  word.  It  is  distinctively  the 
love  of  feeling,  of  endearment,  and  hence  frequently  it  is  used  of 
the  outward  sign  of  fondness,  and  also  in  a  vague  way  of  that 
fondness  which  produces  the  habit  of  this  or  that  action,  though 
this  is  true  of  aya^aw  too.  Both  are  said  of  God's  love  to  His 
Son.  Dean  A.,  if  I  remember  rightly,  considers  that  the  Lord 
drops  the  word  of  reverential  love  (dyarruu)  which  he  had  twice 
used,  comes  down  to  the  word  of  human  affection,  Petei-'s  own 
word  (p/>.5w),  and  this  third  time  questions,  not  merely  his  loyal 
love  for  his  master,  but  the  very  human  regard  of  his  heart. 
On  the  contrary,  it  appears  to  me,  that  Mhile  the  Lord  thoroughly 


judges  Peter's  confidence  in  his  own  love  to  Him,  in  its  so 
exceeding  that  of  others  that  he  could  stand  where  they  fled, 
He  not  only  hears  Peter's  repeated  declaration  of  his  true  and 
near  affection  for  Him,  but  Himself  takes  it  up  the  third  time, 
and  that  this,  flashing  on  Peter's  threefold  denial,  went  to  his 
inmost  heart.  The  Greek  concordance  utterly  dissolves  the  idea 
that  reverential  love  is  the  dominant  thought  in  uya'zdu.  We 
are  not  called  so  to  love  our  enemies,  nor  even  our  neighbours 
(Matt.  V,  43,  44  ;  vi.  24).  Nor  was  it  so  that  Christ  loved  the 
rich  young  man  ;  and  certainly  none  can  pretend  that  God  reve- 
rentially loved  the  world  (John  iii.  16)  ;  and  this  is  not  a  tithe, 
perhaps,  of  the  absurdity  that  follows  Dean  A.'s  distinction,  if  I 
understand  him.  As  little  can  (piXiu  be  reduced  to  the  mere 
human  regard  of  the  heart.  It  is  not  thus  that  the  Father  loves 
the  Son  (John  v.  20),  or  even  us  (John  xvi.  27)  ;  nor  can  any- 
thing be  more  opposed,  as  it  appears  to  me,  to  the  true  scope  of 
1  Cor.  xvi.  22  ;  Titus  iii  15  ;  Piev.  iii.  19,  where  (piXiu  occurs. 
Let  the  reader  judge. 


1  Timothy  i.  19,  20. — There  does  not  appear  to  be  any  real 
difficulty  in  understanding  how  a  believer  might  concerning 
faith  make  shipwreck,  more  than  in  practical  holiness.  Surely 
this  was  exactly  what  befel  the  late  Mr.  Irving,  not  to  speak  of 
Tractarian  or  Popish  perverts.  There  is  no  doubt  but  that  godly 
discipline  may  take  its  course,  even  to  the  extreme  act  of  putting 
away  in  the  case  of  real  Christians,  if  they  have  got  under  the 
enemy's  power  in  conduct  or  doctiine.  The  proper  sphere  of 
discipline  is  within  (i.e.  in  the  circle  of  those  who  bear  Christ's 
name).  Them  that  are  without  God  judgeth.  Those  who  keep 
the  true  Feast  are  bound  to  put  out  leaven  ;  and,  if  leaven  in 
practice,  still  more  in  doctrine.  For  a  little  leaven  leaveneth  the 
wdiole  lump.     (Compare  1  Cor.  v.  and  Gal.  v.) 



There  would  be  no  point  gained  iu  supposing  a  universal- 
judgment  of  all  at  the  close ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  great  loss 
in  force  of  truth.  In  fact,  the  idea  and  expression  "  general 
resurrection  "  is  itself  fallacious  :  for  resurrection  is  of  all  things 
the  most  separative.  Even  John  v,  makes  out  two  resurrec- 
tions, irreconcilably  differing  in  character  and  issues,  as  Eev. 
XX.  shows  them  to  be  in  time.  The  resurrection  of  life  is  in 
contrast  with  the  resurrection  of  judgment  (x^/cew;),  and  evi- 
dently, if  involved  in  a  common  judgment,  there  would  be  no 
room  for  such  a  contrast.  Matt.  xxv.  34,  etc.,  is  essentially  a 
millennial  scene,  not  before  nor  after  that  epoch.  Nor  does  it 
appear  tliat  any  rigliteous  die  during  the  millennium,  Isa.  Ixv. 
speaking  only  of  those  judicially  accursed.  The  Son  of  man's 
coming  as  a  thief  is  nowhere  connected  with  the  rapture  of  the 
saints  ;  but  I  say  no  more  now,  as  this  latter  would  involve 


It  is  plain  that  the  Lord,  in  this  chapter,  sends  the  twelve 
upon  a  mission  specifically  Jewish.  "  Go  not  into  the  way  of 
the  Gentiles,  and  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye  not : 
but  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of -the  house  of  Israel "  (Matt,  x.) 
Afterwards,  in  apprising  them  of  the  persecutions  and  treachery 
they  were  to  expect,  he  bids  them  flee  from  one  city  to  another  : 
"  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  ye  shall  not  have  gone  over  (or 
finished)  the  cities  of  Israel  till  the  Son  of  man  be  come."  That 
is,  their  mission  should  be  broken  off,  before  it  was  complete, 
by  the  coming  of  their  blaster.  Doubtless,  another  commission, 
expressly  to  the  Gentiles,  appears  at  the  close  of  this  Gospel, 
and  the  development  of  God's  counsels,  the  mystery  of  Christ 
and  the  church,  came  out  still  later,  chiefly  through  the  ministry 


and  writings  of  the  Apostle  Paul.  Thus  the  original  Jewish 
mission  was  interrupted,  and  what  has  been  aptly  styled  "  the 
Gentile  parenthesis  "  came  in  :  this  over,  the  Lord  will,  I  doubt 
not,  raise,  at  a  yet  future  day,  servants  destined  to  take  up  the 
M'ord  and  work  now  left  in  abeyance,  and,  ere  they  will  have 
finished  their  proclamation  of  the  approaching  kingdom  through- 
out all  the  cities  of  Israel,  the  Son  of  man  will  come.  That 
work  (wherever  else  the  gospel  has  been  carried)  was  not  finished 
in  the  Apostolic  era,  nor  will  it  be,  when  once  more  resumed  in 
the  latter  day,  before  the  Lord's  return  to  establish  the  kingdom 
over  the  earth  in  power  and  glory. 


I  do  not  think  Luke  xvi.  16  and  Mark  i.  1-4  intimate  that 
John  Baptist  was  "  under  the  gospel  dispensation."  The  king- 
dom of  God  might  be  said  to  be  present  in  the  person  and  power 
of  Christ  (compare  Matt.  xii.  28,  and  Luke  xvii.  21)  ;  but,  as  far 
as  others  were  concerned,  all  that  the  Lord  says  on  this  head, 
and  after  John  was  put  in  prison,  is,  "  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand."  It  was  not  come  for  others  to 
enter  in  till  the  work  of  redemption  was  accomplished,  and  then 
it  was  opened  both  to  Jew  and  Gentile  that  believed.  "  Every 
man  presseth  into  it,"  does  not  imply  that  any  were  yet  within. 
It  was  being  preached  as  nigh  both  by  John  and  afterwards  by 
the  disciples  ;  but,  whatever  the  saving  mercy  of  God  might 
have  been  in  past  times,  and  of  course  then  also,  it  was  still  an 
object  of  search  and  desire  till  the  cross  and  resurrection  of  the 
Lord.  Then  it  was  come,  and  every  believer  entered,  and  the 
accession  of  spiritual  blessing  and  privilege  was  such,  that  the 
least  in  the  kingdom  was  greater  than  the  greatest  before,  even 
than  John  himself,  near  as  he  was  to  it  as  just  at  hand.  We 
must  bear  in  mind  that,  as  to  John's  testimony  in  John  i.  29-34, 
iii.  29,  d  scq<i.,  it  may  have  exceeded,  more  or  less,  his  own  intelli- 


gence,  as  was  often  the  case  in  the  utterances  of  the  Okl  Testa- 
ment prophets.  John  Baptist  did  not  know  more  than  they, 
what  it  is  to  be  purged  worshippers,  having  no  more  conscience 
of  sins.  But  this  is  only  one  of  tlie  many  blessings  that  attach 
to  all  within  the  kingdom  now. 

I  am  aware  that  some,  shrinking  from  the  simple  meanin"- 
because  it  traverses  their  preconceived  thoughts,  have  sought  to 
make  6  .a/xp&Vffoj  the  least  prophet,  others  {inoli  lyudort)  Christ 
himself ;  but  such  notions  are  unwarranted  and  untenable. 


One  is  quite  right  in  thinking  that  the  apostle's  word  goes 
far  beyond  speaking  according  to  the  Scriptures,  for  a  man  might 
say  nothing  but  what  was  scriptural,  and  not  speak  wj  y.oyia.  ©soD. 
The  passage  implies  that  one  should  only  speak  when  one  has 
the  certainty  of  uttering  what  one  believes  to  be  the  mind  of  God. 
If  there  is  not  this  confidence,  one  ought  to  be  silent.  It  may 
be  an  artless  message,  possibly  like  that  of  Peter  and  John, 
displaying  the  speaker  to  be  humanly  ignorant  and  unlearned, 
and  yet  just  the  mind  of  God,  suitable  to  the  present  need. 
This  is  to  speak  as  oracles  of  God.  Another  might  speak  a 
word  true  in  itself,  but  applicable  to  wholly  different  circum- 
stances, warning  where  comfort  was  needed,  instruction  where 
the  Spirit  was  rather  calling  out  communion,  or  vice  tcrsd.  To 
speak  thus  is  not  to  speak  as  oracles  of  God.  Of  course,  there 
is  the  other  and  equally  imperative  obligation  on  the  part  of 
those  who  hear,  of  examining  all  by  the  word  of  God. 


Romans  vii.  4.— It  may  be  allowed  that,  in  the  previous 
verses  which  speak  of  the  matrimonial  obligation,  ceremonial 
and  social  laws  are  alluded  to  ;   but  in  illustration  of  what  ? 



Clearly  the  Cliristian's  relation  to  the  law  as  a  whole.  Death 
severs  the  marriage  tie  :  after  that,  there  is  liberty  to  belong  to 
another.  Just  so,  Christians  are  dead  to  the  law  by  the  body 
of  Christ,  who  has  in  life  accomplished  it,  and  in  death  silenced 
all  its  claims  for  such  as  had  failed  under  it.  Our  position  now 
is,  that  we  belong  to  another,  even  to  Christ  risen  from  the  dead. 
The  fifth  verse  is  clear  and  positive  that  the  moral  law  is  meant, 
for  it  was  that  especially  which  provoked  the  passions  or  motions 
of  sins  in  our  natural  state.  "  But  now  we  are  delivered  from 
the  law,  being  dead  to  that  wherein  we  were  held,"  etc. 

1  do  not  deny  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  is  fulfilled 
in  the  Christian,  that  he  walks  in  the  love  of  God  and  of  his 
neighbour,  which  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law  ;  but  then  it  is 
because  he  is  under  grace,  and  not  under  law.  He  is  not  as  a 
servant  under  this  and  that  stipulation  for  so  much  wages  ;  he 
is  set  free  in  Christ's  death  and  lives  in  Christ's  life  as  risen 
from  the  dead — a  condition  of  life  which  the  law  cannot  touch, 
however  it  may  fulfil  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  and  far  more : 
for  we  are  called  to  be  followers  of  God  in  a  way  which  the  law 
never  demanded.  The  Lord  grant  all  his  own  to  understand 
better  their  own  blessings  in  His  grace,  that  so  their  communion 
may  be  deeper  and  more  heavenly,  and  their  walk  in  the  same 


2  Thessalonians  ii.  2. — It  is  quite  right  to  distinguish  be- 
tween "  the  coming  "  and  "  the  day  of  the  Lord."  They  are  not 
the  same  thing,  though  of  course  closely  connected.  Again,  it  is 
certain  that  hssTrjxsv  means  "  is  actually  come,"  or  "  is  present," 
and  not  "  is  at  hand."  But  it  is  a  mistake  to  assume  that  the 
Thessalonian  saints  then  knew  the  relative  order  of  these  two 
things  ;  and  this  ignorance  on  all  sides  gave  occasion  for  the 
false  teachers  to  trouble  them  with  the  cry  that  "  the  day  of 


the  Lord  was  there,"  which  would  have  been  trying  enough, 
even  with  the  thought  of  being  caught  up  during  or  after  it. 
Tliis  the  Spirit  meets  by  intimating  that  the  coming  precedes 
the  day,  Avhich,  besides,  awaits  a  fuller  development  of  evU. 


Hebrews  ii.  5. — There  is  no  intimation  that  I  can  see  that 
the  world,  under  the  old  dispensation,  was  subjected  to  angels, 
but  the  statement  that  all  things  are  put  under  the  glorified  man, 
even  Jesus,  already  crowned,  though  now  we  see  not  yet  all 
things  put  under  Him.  He  is  to  be  displayed  the  king  of  the 
world  to  come,  the  future  habitable  earth,  and  not  of  heaven 
merely.  It  is  a  negative  statement,  excluding  angels,  who  were 
familiar  to  the  Hebrew  mind  as  the  most  exalted  creatures  known 
to  them,  from  that  government  which  pertains  to  the  Son  of 
Man,  who  had  been  already  (in  chap,  i.)  shown  to  be,  in  a 
special  sense,  Son  of  God,  yea  God  himself,  the  adored  of  all 
angels,  the  Creator. 


Hebrews  iv.  12. — I  think  that,  where  distinguished  as  here, 
"soul"  and  "spirit"  refer  respectively  to  the  seat  of  indivi- 
duality and  to  that  of  capacity.  Every  man  has  both  soul 
and  spirit,  and  they  are  so  linked  and  close  that  the  word  of 
God  alone  can  rightly  divide  between  their  sometimes  conflicting 
emotions  and  judgments.  It  judges  all,  searches  into  "the 
thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart."  But  then  we  have  Christ  as 
our  high  priest  interceding  for  us,  and  maintaining  us  in  spite 
of  the  sifting  process,  according  to  the  value  of  His  work. 


Ephesians  iii.  15. — nasa.  cara/«. — Our  translators  were  probably 


influenced  by  their  theological  views  not  to  follow  the  grammatical 
rule,  that  ^raj  connected  with  a  substantive  without  the  article 
means  every,  not  the  whole.  There  is  no  doubt  that  "every  family" 
is  the  right  translation — embracing  perhaps  the  various  classes 
named  in  Heb.  xii.  22,  23,  And  I  am  confident  that  the  view 
thus  sought  to  be  maintained  is  a  confusion  of  things  that  differ 
— all  believers  under  every  dispensation  being  taken  together  in 
the  mass  as  "  the  church  of  God."  But  let  scriptural  proof  be 
shown  for  the  application  of  this  term  to  any  save  the  Jews  and 
Gentiles  baptized  into  one  body  between  Pentecost  and  the 
Lord's  second  coming.  The  special  features  of  "  the  Church," 
union  with  Christ  in  heaven  by  the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down 
thence  consequent  on  His  ascension — baptism  of  Jews  and 
Gentiles  by  "  one  Spirit "  into  "  one  body  " — the  full  enjoyment 
of  the  knowledge  of  God  as  "  the  Father  " — are  to  be  sought  for 
in  vain  in  either  the  past  or  future  relationships  of  God  with 
His  earthly  people  Israel. 

Moreover,  while  prizing  the  Psalms  and  other  Old  Testament 
portions  of  the  word  of  God,  I  cannot  agree  that  their  language 
is  equally  applicable  to  our  own  position.  "  Now  we  know,"  says 
St.  Paul  quoting  (Piom.  iii.)  from  the  Psalnas,  "  that  what  things 
soever  the  law  saith,  it  saith  to  them  ^yho  are  under  the  law." 
St.  Peter  declares,  "  Of  which  salvation  the  prophets  have 
inquired  and  searched  diligently,  who  prophesied  of  the  grace 
that  should  come  unto  you" — the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  them  testi- 
fied beforehand  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  the  glories  that 
should  follow,  i.&.  their  knowledge  of  the  way  of  salvation  was 
only  prophetic — a  very  different  thing  from  tliat  which  is  our 
blessing  "the  Gospel  preached,  with  the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down 
from  heaven" — the  blessed  witness  to  a  fully  accomplished 

Scripture  contradicts  the  idea  that  "  the  Spirit  of  adoption ' 
indited  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament  (see  GaL  iv.)  ;  and 
the  condition  under  the  law  is  expressly  contrasted  (2  Cor.  iii.) 
with  "  the  ministration  of  the  Spirit." 


Therefore  the  application  to  ourselves  of  many  of  the  senti- 
ments of  the  Old  Testament  saints  would  be  most  inappropriate 
to  the  full  position  of  grace  in  which  the  believer  now  stands. 
The  actual  manifestation  of  the  righteousness  of  God  on  behalf 
of  the  sinner — the  conscience  purged  by  the  blood  of  Christ 
— the  knowledge  of  justification  through  His  resurrection,  and 
consequent  "peace  with  God"  and  the  clear  sunshine  of  "no 
condemnation  " — such  truths  were  unknown  save  in  measure  by 
aniticipation  under  tlie  age  of  the  law,  and  form  part  of  "  the 
ministration  of  the  Spirit." 


The  reason  for  the  introduction  of  "  mercy  "  to  Timothy  and 
Titus,  while  St.  Paul  simply  wishes  grace  and  peace,  in  addressing 
churches  (Philemon,  because  of  the  church  in  his  house,  coming 
under  the  last  head),  is  plain.  The  church,  or  corporate  thing, 
is  viewed  in  its  full  privileges  ;  the  individual,  however  favoured, 
recalls  the  thought  of  need  day  by  day  :  "  mercy  "  therefore  is 
appropriate  in  the  latter  case  ratlier  than  in  the  former. 


Colossians  i.  18. — Christ  only  took  the  place  of  head  of  the 
church  after  redemption  was  effected,  and  in  heavenly  glory  as 
its  result,  and  the  formation  of  what  the  Bible  calls  His  body 
demanded  this  as  a  basis,  and  tlie  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from 
heaven  as  the  power  of  its  unity. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that,  when  Scripture  speaks  of  the 
''  one  body,"  it  is  in  reference  to  the  earth.  It  is  now,  and  on 
earth,  that  the  saints  are  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost  into  one 
body,  though  I  am  far  I'rom  believing  that  such  a  relationship 
will  cease  by  and  by  in  heaven. 

It  is  as  first-born  from  the  dead  that  Christ  is  the  beginning 


even  though  He  was  from  everlasting  the  only  begotten  Son, 
and  the  Eternal  Life  with  the  Father.  Hence  said  He  to  Peter 
who  had  confessed  Him  to  be  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  "Upon 
this  rock  I  will  build  my  church."  It  had  not  yet  been  built 
or  begun  to  be  built.  The  foundation  was  not  laid  :  it  was  laid 
afterwards  in  His  death  and  resurrection. 

Then  ascending  to  heaven,  He  became  the  head,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  came  down  in  person  to  gather  into  union  with 
Him  as  so  risen  and  ascended.  This  and  this  only  is  what  the 
ISTew  Testament  designates  His  body ;  for,  according  to  the 
figure,  there  could  not  be  a  body  Avithout  and  before  the  head. 

The  exeeedingly  precious  mercies  of  God  to  all  saints  are 
unquestionable  ;  and  to  some  it  may  seem  presumptuous  to 
predicate  peculiar  privileges  of  those  called  since  Pentecost. 
But,  evidently,  the  question  is  one  not  of  man's  reasoning,  nor  of 
preconceived  notions,  but  of  God's  word  and  will. 

And  it  is  plain  that  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  not  to  speak 
of  other  Epistles,  dwell  much  on  certain  blessings  now  conferred 
on  the  saints  which  never  were  enjoyed  by,  nor  promised  to,  the 
Old  Testament  saints.  They  are  the  church's  blessings  brought 
out  of  God's  treasury  in  this  present  dispensation,  for  the  gloiy 
of  Christ,  and  to  show  the  riches  of  His  own  grace.  The  argu- 
ments of  those  who  have  assailed  the  point  do  not  even  touch 
the  question,  which  they  do  not  seem  even  to  understand. 


2  Timothy  i.  6. — I  ajDprehend  that  the  common  division  of 
"  gifts  "  {yaoisiJ.a.Tu)  into  ordinary  and  extraordinary  is  unscrip- 
tural,  and  calculated  to  mislead  ;  for  in  one  sense,  and  that  a 
very  real  one,  aU  the  gifts  are  the  affects  of  XH'^^  "  freely  given 
of  God,"  and  not  attained  by  man's  labour.  Scripture  recognises 
these  things  as  quite  distinct  ;  first,  the  natural  ability  with  its 
providential  training,  as  the  vessel  ;  secondly,  the  gift  of  grace, 


which  is  received  in  due  time  by  the  chosen  vessel ;  and  thirdly, 
the  use  of  means  (as  prayer,  the  word,  meditation,  hearing,  etc.), 
that  the  gift  be  stirred  up,  and  profiting  appear.  No  doubt,  the 
gifts  which  were  signs  have  disappeared  ;  but  all  needed  for 
perpetuating,  nourishing,  and  ruling  the  church  abide  "  till  we 
all  come,"  etc, 

I  do  not  think  that  there  is  any  difficulty  in  the  apostolic 
communication  of  a  xapaij^a,  when  the  Lord  was  so  pleased. 
There  was  an  express  prophecy  so  directing  it  in  Timothy's  case. 
In  general  the  New  Testament  shows  that  such  a  channel  was 
not  necessary  nor  often  employed,  though  it  was  sometimes  in 
the  wisdom  of  God.  The  same  remark  applies  not  merely  to 
the  ;i|^aff/(r,aara,  but  to  the  bwoid  of  the  Holy  Ghost  {i.e.  the  Holy 
Ghost  Himself  given  to  believers  in  general).  Occasionally  this 
was  associated  with  the  imposition  of  apostolic  hands,  as  in  the 
case  of  Peter  and  John  (Acts  viii.),  and  in  Paul's  case  (Acts  xix.) 
But  Acts  ii.  X.,  etc.,  are  decisive  that  it  would  be  an  error  to 
suppose  anything  of  the  sort  to  be  the  invariable  rule.  Hence, 
while  God  by  times  attached  either  the  one  or  the  other  to  the 
apostles.  He  maintained  His  own  sovereignty  all  the  while  ;  and 
certainly  He  has  not  failed  either  in  giving  the  Holy  Ghost  or 
in  distributing  such  gifts  as  He  sees  fit  to  continue,  and  this 
directly,  now  that  apostles  are  no  longer  found  on  earth.  Eom. 
i.  11  does  not  necessarily  mean  a  ministerial  gift. 


This  first  book  of  the  Bible  is  the  remarkable  preface,  as  the 
Apocalypse  is  the  equally  striking  conclusion,  of  the  revelations 
of  God.  It  presents  the  germ,  in  one  form  or  another,  of  nearly 
all  the  ways  of  God  and  man,  which  we  find  separately  developed 
in  the  suceeding  books  of  Scripture  ;  just  as  the  Apocalypse  is 
the  natural  close,  presenting  the  ripened  fruits  even  for  eternity 
of  all  that  had  been  sown  from  the  first,  the  ultimate  results  of 


every  intervening  interference  of  God  and  of  His  enemy.  Thus, 
we  have  in  Genesis  the  creation  of  which  man  is  chief  (i.)  ;  the 
principles  of  moral  relationship  with  God  and  His  creatures  (ii.); 
the  temptation  of  Satan  and  his  judgment  by  the  seed  of  the 
woman  ;  sin  against  God  and  man  (and  especially  against  Christ 
in  type),  sacrifice  and  worship,  the  world  and  the  household  of 
faith  (iii.  iv.)  ;  the  heavenly  and  the  earthly  testimonies  to 
Christ's  coming  (v.)  ;  the  apostasy  of  man  (vi.)  ;  God's  warning 
by  His  Spirit  and  judgment  in  the  deluge,  with  the  salvation  of 
a  spared  remnant  in  the  ark,  and  mercy  to  the  creature  (vii.)  ; 
reconciliation  in  its  relation  to  the  earth  and  not  to  man  only 
(viii.)  ;  God's  covenant  with  creation  (ix.)  ;  government  and 
the  history  of  the  present  world  in  its  early  rise  and  progress 
(x,  xi.) ;  the  call  and  promises  of  God,  and  the  history  of  the 
called  (xii.) ;  the  heavenly  and  earthly  callings  (xiii.)  ;  the 
Melchizedec  priesthood  (xiv.)  ;  the  Jewish  portion  unfolded  and 
confirmed,  with  the  disclosure  of  long  oppression  previously  from 
those  who  are  to  be  specially  judged  (xv.) ;  the  typical  introduc- 
tion of  the  law  or  Hagar  covenant  (xvi.)  ;  and  the  intervention 
of  God's  grace  sealed  by  circumcision,  and  displayed  in  the  heir 
of  promise  fxvii.)  ;  whose  further  announcement  is  linked  with 
the  divine  judgment  about  to  fall  once  more,  and  with  interces- 
sion as  the  due  place  of  those  who,  outside  the  evil,  enjoy  com- 
munion with  God  (xviii.)  ;  salvation  so  as  by  fire  out  of  the 
tribulation  and  judgment  which  swallow  up  tlie  ungodly  (xix.) ; 
failure  of  the  faithful  in  maintaining  their  real  relationship 
before  the  world  (xx.)  ;  the  son  of  promise  is  born,  and  the  child 
of  the  law,  according  to  the  flesh,  is  cast  out,  followed  by  the 
world's  submission  instead  of  reproof  (xxi.)  Then  follows  the 
grand  shadow  of  Christ's  death,  as  the  provision  of  the  Father's 
love,  and  His  resurrection  (xxii.)  ;  the  covenant  form  of  blessing 
disappears  (xxiii.) ;  and  the  calling  of  the  bride  for  the  risen 
bridegroom  ensues  (xxiv.)  Finally  is  seen  the  sovereign  call  of 
him,  afterwards  named  Israel,  who  is  identified  with  the  sorrows, 


■wanderings,  and  ultimate  blessing  of  that  people  (xxv.-l.)  ;  with 
the  striking  episode  of  his  son  Joseph,  who  is  first  rejected  by 
his  brethren  after  the  flesh,  and  suffers  yet  more  at  the  hands  of- 
the  Gentiles  ;  next  is  exalted  (as  yet  unknown  to  his  natural 
kindred)  to  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  ;  and  lastly  is  owned  in 
glory  by  the  very  brethren  who  had  rejected  him,  but  now  owe 
all  to  his  wisdom  and  majesty  and  love.  Genesis  is  at  once  a 
book'  of  matchless  simplicity  to  him  who  glides  over  its  surface, 
and  of  infinite  depth  to  him  who  searches  into  the  deep  things 
of  God. 


Hebrews  vi.  18. — "The  hope  set  before  us"  is  the  expecta- 
tion of  heavenly  glory  as  secured  and  displayed  in  Christ  exalted 
on  higli.  Of  course,  the  "  hope  "  implies  something  yet  to  be 
done  or  manifested  ;  though,  being  of  God  in  Christ,  it  has  not 
the  smallest  shade  of  uncertainity  about  it  like  what  men  call 
hope.  This  hope  has  present  effects  too  "  by  the  which  w^e  draw 
nigh  to  God."  (Compare  Heb.  x.  23,  which  ought  to  be  "  hope  " 
rather  than  "faith,"  as  in  the  authorised  version),  as  it  ought  to 
fill  us  with  joy  (Heb.  iii.  6).  It  is  clearly  in  the  future  alone 
that  all  will  be  realised,  and  therefore  it  is  justly  called  "hope" 
still  the  work  being  finished,  and  Christ  having  entered  within 
the  veil,  our  hope  is  said  to  penetrate  there  too.  That  is,  besides 
being  sure  for  us  and  steadfast  in  itself,  it  is  heavenly  as  entering 
into  the  immediate  presence  of  God  on  the  basis  of  the  precious 
blood  of  Christ.  It  counts  upon  God  fulfilling  all  He  has 
promised,  according  to  the  faithfulness  which  has  raised  up 
Christ  from  the  dead  (like  Isaac  in  the  type),  and  set  Him  in 
the  atmosphere  of  unchangeable  blessing  inside  the  veil.  As 
Abraham  had  his  son  given  back  as  it  were,  and  the  promise 
confirmed  by  an  oath,  so  have  we  our  hopes  confirmed  in  a 
yet  more  precious  way  in  Christ  glorified  above,  though  still 
having  "  need  of  patience." 



Eevelation  v.  9,  10. — It  is  one  of  the  special  objects  of  the 
Revelation,  as  I  judge,  to  disclose  the  position  and  intelligent 
worship  of  the  heavenly  saints,  after  they  have  been  gathered 
to  the  Lord  in  the  air,  and  previous  to  His  epiphany,  and  this 
in  connection  with  the  intervening  judgments  set  forth  under 
the  seals,  trumpets,  and  vials.  Another  design  is  to  show  that 
even  in  those  terrible  days,  "the  end  of  the  age,"  after  the 
church  has  been  caught  up  to  meet  the  Lord,  God  will  not 
leave  Himself  without  a  witness,  but  will,  by  His  word  and 
Spirit,  commence  a  new  work,  suited  to  the  times  of  special 
antichristian  delusion.  Daniel  also  (ch.  vii.-xii.)  makes  knoAvn 
to  us  saints  involved  in  these  same  trials,  but  they  are,  I  think, 
Jewish  saints  exclusively.  St.  John  was  the  appropriate  in- 
strument to  reveal  a  larger  company  of  holy  sufferers,  and  that 
from  the  Gentiles,  "  out  of  every  kindred,"  etc.  The  countless 
multitude  seen  in  Rev.  vii.  9  ct  seqq.  is  out  of  all  nations,  but,  as 
to  time,  restricted  to  "the  great  tribulation."  This  transition 
period,  after  the  rapture  of  the  church,  and  before  the  millen- 
nium, is  one  of  great  moment,  and  very  little  understood. 


I.  The  title  "  Son  of  God  "  is  predicated  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  three  different  applications. 

1.  In  the  sense  of  His  being  born  in  time.  This  Ps.  ii.  sets 
forth  :  "Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee" — in 
connection  with  His  kingship  in  Zion,  presented  to  Israel's 
responsibility  at  His  first  advent,  but  postponed  till  His  second, 
because  of  their  then  and  present  unbelief  So  Is.  ix.  6  :  "  Unto 
us  a  Child  is  born,  unto  us  a  Son  is  given."  Compare  Luke  i. 
32  :  "  He  shall  be  great,  and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the 
Highest,  and  the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  Him  the  throne  of 


his  father  David."  And  further,  ver.  35  :  "  Therefore  also  that 
holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son 
of  God." 

2.  "Son  of  God"  as  risen  from  the  dead.  Thus,  Acts  xiii. 
33,  34,  shows  Jesus  in  these  two  positions ;  ver.  33,  as  raised 
upon  earth  ("  again  "  should  be  omitted  here,  as  it  is  in  ch.  iii. 
22,  26,  the  meaning  both  there  and  here  being  the  Messiah  born 
in  this  world) ;  ver.  34,  as  raised  up  from  the  dead.  See  also 
Col.  i.,  where  ver.  15  seems  to  refer  to  His  birth  into  the  world, 
where  He  necessarily  was  the  first-born  or  chief  of  every  creature, 
as  being  the  Creator  ;  and  ver.  18,  to  His  place  of  pre-eminence 
as  risen,  "  who  is  the  beginning,  the  first-born  from  the  dead." 
Heb.  i.  5,  6  :  ver.  5  speaks  of  Him  in  the  first  of  these  two 
positions  ;  ver.  6,  probably  in  the  second,  especially  if  the  mar- 
ginal rendering  (which  is  most  likely  the  correct  one)  be  taken, 
which  would  connect  His  introduction  into  the  habitable  world 
with  His  second  coming.     Eev.  i.  5  may  confirm  this. 

3.  Heb.  i.  1 ,  2,  3,  evidently  speaks  of  our  Lord  as  Son  in 
the  highest  sense,  that  is,  as  divine.  So  almost  everywhere  in 
the  Gospel  and  Epistles  of  St.  John.  "  The  only  begotten  of  the 
Father "  does  not  refer  to  His  place  as  born  on  earth  or  risen 
from  the  dead,  but  expresses  His  eternal  relationship  as  a  divine 

II.  John  v.  as  it  shows  us  the  Son  quickening  whom  He 
will  in  virtue  of  His  divine  glory,  so  it  declares  that  all  judg- 
ment is  committed  to  Him  as  Son  of  Man.  This  title  refers  to 
His  assumption  of  that  nature  in  which  He  is  first  rejected,  and 
secondly  exalted  as  universal  Lord  and  Judge.  See  Ps.  viii. 
compared  with  Heb.  ii ;  Dan.  vii. ;  the  Gospels  imssim.  Hence 
also  He  is  seen  as  "  the  Sou  of  Man "  in  connection  with  the 
judgment  of  the  seven  churches  in  Eev.  i.  Hence  cherubim  as 
the  witness  of  judgment  were  wrought  on  the  veil,  the  tj^pe  of 
His  flesh. 



Romans  v.  12-21. — Thongh  I  cannot  but  dissent  from  those 
who  consider  this  a  difficult  passage,  it  is  plain  that  it  is  often 
misunderstood,  as  it  is  certainly  momentous  in  its  bearings. 

First,  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  parenthesis  is  rightly  marked 
so  as  to  help  the  sense,  13-17  inclusively  being  one  of  those 
full  and  instructive  digressions  so  characteristic  of  St.  Paul. 

Next,  be  it  observed,  that  the  apostle  traces  sin  up  to  its 
source,  beyond  the  Jew  or  the  law.  "  By  one  man  sin  entered 
into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin  ;  and  so  death  passed  upon 
all  men,  for  that  all  sinned."  Sin  was  theirs  through  one  ; 
besides,  all  sinned  too.  It  was  not  the  law  of  which  the  Jews 
boasted  which  brought  in  sin  ;  for  it  existed  anterior  to  the 
Sinai  covenant.  And,  though  sin  was  not  j)ut  to  account,  or 
imputed  to  man  in  God's  government  of  the  world  before  the 
law,  still  death  reigned,  the  proof  and  wages  of  sin,  even  over 
those  who  did  not  transgress  a  known  commandment  like 
Adam  (or  like  the  Jews  after  the  law  was  given).  That  is, 
while  in  the  nature  of  things  there  might  not  be  transgression 
between  the  two  points  of  Adam 'and  Moses,  there  was  sin,^ 
and  God  marked  His  sense  of  it,  for  death  reigned.  Now,  if 
Adam  were  confessedly  typical  of  the  ]\Iessiah  who  was  to 
come,  should  not  the  free  gift  be  as  the  offence  ?  For  if  by  the 
offence  of  the  one  the  many  (the  mass  connected  wdth  him,  who 
in  this  case  were  all .  mankind)  died,  much  more  did  the  grace 
of  God,  and  the  gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man  Jesus 
Christ,  abound  unto  the  many.  And  shall  not,  as  by  one 
that  sinned,  be  the  gift?  For  the  judgment  was  of  one  [thing] 
to  condemnation,  but  the  free  gift  is  of  many  offences  to  justi- 

^  In  1  John  iii.  4  tlie  true  force  bcj-oiul  a  doubt  is,  "sin  is  lawlessness," 
and  not  "transgression  of  tlic  law,"  wliich  is  a  dilfi'rent  phrase  and  idea.  Man 
was  corrupt  and  violent  before  the  law  ;  under  the  law  he  despised  and  rebelled 
against  the  authority  of  God.  Transgression  is  always  sin  ;  but  sin  embraces  much 
more  than  transgression,  being  the  genus  of  which  transgression  is  the  species. 


fication.  For  if  by  the  offence  of  the  one,  death  reigned  by  the 
one ;  much  more  shall  those  who  receive  abundance  of  grace  and 
of  the  gift  of  righteousness,  reign  in  life  by  the  one,  Jesus  ■ 
Christ.  This  closes  the  parenthesis,  nor  could  reasoning  be 
more  compressed  in  itself,  or  more  conclusive  to  a  Jew.  "For 
he,  of  all  men,  could  not  deny  the  sorrowful  facts  of  Genesis,  or 
the  universal  ruin  entailed  by  Adam's  sin.  The  principle  then 
is  conceded.  From  the  beginning  God  had  recognised  some- 
thing more  than  mere  individualism.  If  the  first  and  earthy 
man  had  sent  down  to  all  his  family  sin  and  death,  why  should 
not  the  second  man,  the  Lord  from  heaven,  transmit  to  His 
family  righteousness  and  life  ?  Verse  15  compares  the  persons 
or  heads;  verse  16  contrasts  the  things,  or  the  judgment 
grounded  on  a  single  act  with  the  state  of  accomplished  right- 
eousness {hr/.a'miia)  in  spite  of  many  offences  ;  and  verse  17 
presents  the  crowning  result,  the  evident  propriety  that,  if  by 
the  offence  of  one  death  reigned,  how  much  rather  should  tlie 
last  Adam's  family  reign  in  life  through  their  glorious  head. 

Then,  we  have  the  general  thread  resumed  with  light  and 
force  derived  from  the  parenthesis,  and  this  in  the  most  abstract 
way  possible.  "  Therefore,  then  (in  allusion  to  the  intervening 
verses,  but  in  direct  reference  to  verse  12),  as  [it  was]  by  one 
offence  unto  all  men  to  condemnation ;  so  also  [is  it]  by  one 
accomplished  righteousness  unto  all  to  justification  of  life.  For 
as  by  the  disobedience  of  the  one  man  the  many  were  con- 
stituted sinners,  so  also  by  the  obedience  of  the  one  shall  the 
many  be  constituted  righteous."  That  is,  verse  18  gives  us  the 
pure  and  simple  tendency  of  Adam's  offence  on  the  one  hand, 
and  of  Christ's  ri"hteousness  on  the  other.     The  direction  of  the 


one,  as  of  the  other,  was  towards  all  men.  But  verse  19  adds 
the  very  important  information  that,  whatever  might  be  the 
scope  of  action  in  either  case,  the  actual  and  definitive  effect 
was  a  different  matter.  All  men  were  not  left  in  their  ruin,  nor 
were  all,  in  result,  delivered  through  Christ.     Hence  the  change 


from  cravrsc,  to  oi  roVXoi,  for  it  is  mere  ignorance  to  take  them  as 
equipollent.  In  certain  circumstances  they  may  mean  the 
same  persons,  but  the  terms  are  invariably  distinct  in  them- 
selves. Thus,  in  verse  18,  where  "all"  occurs,  we  have  the 
universal  aspect  of  the  act,  whether  of  Adam  or  of  Christ ;  but 
in  verse  19,  where  the  positive  application  is  treated  of,  we  get 
"  the  many  "  who  are  in  fact  affected  thereby. 

But  law  did  come  :  why  it  entered,  and,  as  it  were  by  the 
way,  the  apostle  answers  in  verse  20.  It  was  that  (not  sin,  but) 
"the  offence  might  abound."  God  forbid  that  anything  God 
gave  should  be  said  to  create  evil !  Sin  being  already  there, 
the  law  came  to  bring  out  its  real  character  as  directly  violating 
God's  command  when  He  gives  one.  "  But  where  sin  abounded, 
grace  superabounded,  in  order  that,  as  sin  reigned  in  death, 
so  also  might  grace  reign,  through  righteousness,  to  eternal 
life  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

May  I  just  say  in  closing,  that  the  authorised  version  is 
clearly  wrong  in  twice  rendering  iig  'jrdvTag  dvSpui-rou;  "upon  all 
men  "?  In  such  a  sentence  it  ought  to  be,  "  unto  or  towards  all 
men."  The  distinction  of  £/s  and  It/  strikingly  appears  in  Eom. 
iii.  22  ;  where  we  have,  first,  the  universal  tendency  of  God's 
I'ighteousness,  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  then,  the  actual 
application  of  it  to  all  those  who  believe.  This  is  accurately 
given  in  our  Bible,  "  unto  all,"  the  first  and  general  presenta- 
tion, putting  all  under  responsibility ;  and  then,  "  upon  all 
them  that  believe,"  the  special  portion  of  all  such  as  believe  ; 
but  the  distinction  is  lost  in  the  same  version  of  chap.  v. 


The  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  Old  Testament,  brings  before  us 
either  individual  saints  or  a  nation  as  the  objects  of  God's 
favour  and  counsels.     It  is  of  that  nation  (Israel)  that  the  Spirit 


uses  the  term  "  congregatiou  "  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  our 
translators  have  given  as  the  "church  in  the  wilderness,"  in 
Acts  vii,  38.  But  Bishop  Pearson  admits,  as  indeed  every  fair 
man  must,  that  this  is  a  quite  distinct  thing  from  what  is  called 
"  the  Church  of  God,"  etc.,  in  the  New  Testament.  For  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  with  great  fulness,  shows  that  the 
body  of  Christ,  God's  Church,  is  founded  on  the  abolition  of  the 
distinction  between  Jew  and  Gentile,  and,  therefore,  could  not 
be  till  the  cross  broke  down  the  middle  wall  of  partition.  Nor 
could  believing  Jew  and  Gentile  be  builded  together  for  an  habi- 
tation of  God,  till  the  Spirit  came  down  in  a  fuller  way  than 
before,  as  the  fruit  of  Christ's  victory  and  ascension  on  high, 
where  He  took  the  new  place  of  Head  of  the  Church  (not  merely 
of  King  in  Zion).  When  will  they  understand  that  this  was  an 
entirely  new  work  of  God,  and  that  Scripture  gives  to  this  new 
assembly  of  believing  Jews  and  Gentiles  (bonded  together  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from  heaven  in  the  name  of  Jesus) 
the  name  of  "the  Church  of  God"?  It  is  not  merely  that  the 
term  "  Church  of  God "  is  never,  in  the  sense  now  spoken  of, 
applied  to  the  Old  Testament  saints  ;  but  the  state  of  things 
could  not  be  before  Christ's  death  and  resurrection  as  the  basis, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit's  personal  presence  (not  influence,  gifts,  etc., 
merely)  as  the  power  of  this  unity.  It  is  founded  on  Christ 
exalted  in  heaven,  after  having  accomplished  redemption  ;  and 
it  is  formed  by  that  operation  of  the  Spirit  which  not  only 
quickens  but  unites  Jewish  and  Gentile  saints  now  to  Christ  in 
heaven  and  to  each  other  on  earth  as  one  body. 

Now,  indubitably,  such  was  not  the  case  in  the  wilderness, 
nor  in  the  promised  land  :  Jew  and  Gentile,  whether  believing 
or  not,  were  rigorously  severed  by  Divine  command,  and  the 
saints  were  sustained  by  a  promised  Messiah,  instead  of  resting 
on  the  accomplished  work  of  a  Saviour.  Life,  of  course,  divine 
Hfe,  they  had  through  faith,  else  they  would  not  have  been  saints. 
But  there  was  no  such  thiurr  as  union  with  a  slorified  Head  in 


heaven.  Xay,  it  did  not  exist  even  when  our  Lord  was  upon 
earth.  The  disciples  had  faith  and  life,  but  they  were  forbidden 
to  go  to  the  Gentiles,  instead  of  being  united  to  them,  till  Clirist 
rose  from  the  dead.  But  the  moment  the  Spirit  came  down, 
consequent  on  Christ's  exaltation  above,  the  various  tongues 
proclaimed  God's  grace  to  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews ;  and 
for  the  first  time  we  read  of  "  the  Church,"  in  the  full  and  proper 
sense,  as  now  subsisting  on  earth  (see  Acts  ii.)  Christ  had  now 
begun  to  fulfil  His  promise,  "  Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
Church."  How  could  this  mean  the  old  assembly  which  fell  in 
the  wilderness  ?  It  was  a  new  and  future  building.  No  point  is 
evaded,  as  indeed  there  was  no  temptation  ;  for  the  truth  on  this 
subject  is  clear  and  certain,  though  1  do  not  expect  to  convince 
every  one.  What  I  have  remarked  in  this  paper  spares  me  the 
need  of  replying  to  what  is  urged  now,  which  is  altogether  be- 
side the  mark.  The  only  thing  of  the  least  shadow  of  weight 
is  Acts  vii.  38,  which  has  been  fully  explained  (1  Cor.  x.),  and 
proves  that  Israel  was  typical  of  us.  How  does  that  show  that 
they  and  we  form  "one  body"?  Christ  was  the  Lamb  fore- 
ordained before  the  foundation  of  the  world  (not  slain  from  it). 
How  does  this  prove  that  believing  Jew  and  Gentile  formed  one 
body  of  old,  as  unquestionably  they  do  now  ? 

P.S. — The  author  of  a  paper  (on  CoL  i.  18)  admits  much,  too 
■much  I  think,  to  allow  of  a  long  or  successful  resistance  to  the  rest. 
He  allows  that  the  "  scriptural  proofs  of  the  peculiar  blessings 
belonging  to  the  Church,  since  "  what  he  terms  "  its  Pentecostal 
formation,"  are  convincing ;  but  he  seems  to  conceive  that  the 
Old  Testament  saints  may  have  had  those  privileges  extended  to 
chem  also,  though  in  the  separate  state  and  removed  from  earth 
to  heaven.  He  does  not  pretend  to  cite  Scripture  for  this  very 
imaginative  mode  of  embodying  the  Old  Testament  saints  in 
the  Church,  which  I  apprehend  Mill  satisfy  those  who  oppose 
my  views  as  little  as  myself  He  tries  to  make  it  out  by  the 
illustration  of  the  French  empire,  established  after  some  distant 


colony  was  formed,  and  then  granting  its  imperial  advantages 
to  the  colonists.  But  the  answer  is  plain.  Scripture,  in  pre- 
senting to  our  faith  the  groups  of  glory,  distinguishes  the  spirits 
of  just  men  made  perfect  [i.e.  in  resurrection)  from  the  Church 
of  the  first-born.  There  is  no  such  thought  there  as  merging  aU 
in  one  ;  whereas  a  positive  decree  of  the  emperor  would  be  need- 
ful to  make  good  the  claims  of  the  colonists.  Ps.  Ixviii.  18  does 
not  refer  to  departed  saints,  but  to  Christ's  triumph  over  the 
evil  spirits  who  had  previously  led  His  people  captive. 

Another  writer  has  referred  to  Eom.  xL  and  Gal.  iii.  in  proof 
that  the  Church  actually  existed  as  such  in  Old  Testament  times. 
But  this  is  evidently  to  confound  things  that  differ,  because  the 
inheritance  of  the  Abrahamic  promises,  of  which  their  chapters 
treat,  is  not  identical  with  the  enjoyment  of  the  Church's  pri\d- 
leges  j  whereas  their  identity  is  assumed  in  the  argument.  It 
is  allowed  that  the  New  Testament  saints  do  inherit  those 
promises,  but  that  is  an  essentially  different  thing  from  the 
blessings  revealed,  e.g.,  in  the  Ephesians.  The  olive  is  not  the 
heavenly  church  but  the  earthly  tree  of  promise  and  testimony, 
of  which  the  Jews  were  the  natural  branches.  Instead  of  the 
broken-ofif  unfaithful  branches.  Gentiles  are  now  grafted  in  ; 
but,  on  their  unfaithfulness,  excisiou  is  the  sure  threat  of  God, 
and  the  Jews  will  again  be  brought  into  their  own  olive  tree  ; 
i.e.  for  the  millennial  inheritance.  This  is  the  plain  teaching  of 
Eom.  xi. ;  and  though  as  Gentiles  we  may  be  grafted  in,  and  as 
individuals  we  may  be  Abraham's  seed,  the  special  position  of 
Christ's  body,  as  made  known  in  1  Corinthians,  Ephesians, 
Colossians,  etc.,  is  too  distinct  to  require  argumentation.  "When 
"  the  body"  is  spoken  of  there  is  no  cutting  off  nor  grafting  in. 
There  is  in  it  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile.  All  is  above  nature 




Daniel  ix.  27. — I  believe  that  it  is  impossible  legitimately  to 
connect  the  death  of  the  Messiah  with  the  covenant  confirmed 
with  the  mass,  or  many,  for  one  week  {i.e.  7  years)  in  this  pass- 
age, and  that  for  several  reasons  : — 

First,  The  INIessiah  was  already  regarded  as  "  cut  off"  at  the 
close  of  a  previous  division  of  the  weeks,  viz.  after  the  first 
7  +  62  =  G9  weeks,  or  483  years. 

Secondly,  The  disastrous  end  of  the  city  and  the  sanctuary 
is  supposed  to  have  come  before  the  seventieth  week  begins. 
(Compare  the  conclusion  of  verse  26.)  After  the  Messiah  was 
cut  off  and  before  the  last  week,  it  will  be  noticed  by  the  careful 
reader  that  there  is  an  interval  of  indefinite  length,  filled  up  by 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple,  and  a  course  of  war 
and  desolation  wliich  is  not  yet  terminated. 

Thirdly,  After  all  this  comes  the  last,  or  seventieth  week, 
which  has  to  do  with  "  the  beast"  as  clearly  as  the  first  69  weeks 
bring  us  down  to  Christ's  death,  the  interruption  of  the  chain 
being  left  room  for,  and  supplied,  in  the  latter  part  of  verse  26. 

Fourthly,  It  is  clear  that  when  the  Messiah  has  been  cut  off, 
another  personage  is  spoken  of  "  as  the  prince  that  shall  come," 
whom  it  is  absurd  to  confound  with  the  Messiah,  because  it  is 
7iis  people  who  ravage  the  Jewish  city  and  sanctuary  ;  that  is, 
it  is  a  IJonian  prince,  and  not  the  promised  Head  of  Israel. 

Fifthly,  As  this  future  prince  of  the  Eomans  is  the  last 
person  spoken  of,  it '  is  most  natural,  unless  adequate  reasons 
appear  to  the  contrary,  to  consider  that  verse  27  refers  to  him, 
and  not  to  the  slain  ^Messiah  :  "  and  he  shall  confirm  covenant " 
(not  "  the"  covenant,  as  the  margin  shows). 

Sixthly,  This  is  remarkably  strengthened  by  the  time  for 
which  the  covenant  is  made,  namely,  for  seven  years,  which  has, 
in  my  opinion,  no  sense  if  applied  to  anything  founded  on  the 
Lord's  death,  but  exactly  coincides  with  the  two  periods  of  the 


earlier,  and  the  later  half- weeks,  during  which  the  Roman  beast 
acts  variously  in  the  Apocalypse. 

Seventhly,  It  is  yet  more  fortified  by  the  additional  fact,  that 
when  half  the  time  of  this  covenant  expires,  "  He  shall  cause 
the  sacrifice  and  oblation  to  cease,"  just  as  might  be  gathered 
from  Rev.  xi.  and  other  Scriptures. 


Matthew  xiii. — The  connection  between  these  several  parables 
is  asked.  It  will  be  observed  that  they  are  in  all  seven,  the 
number  of  spiritual  completeness  in  good  or  evil.  (See  Leviticus 
and  the  Revelation  •passim)  Next,  it  is  manifest  that  the  first 
differs  from  the  rest,  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  a  likeness  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  which  the  following  six  are.  Further,  of 
these  six,  three  were  said  (beside  the  "  sower")  to  the  multitude 
outside,  as  well  as  the  disciples  ;  the  last  three  to  the  disciples 
alone,  within  the  house.  All  this  bears  upon  the  true  interpret- 
ation, not  as  deciding  but  confirming  it.  For  the  first  parable 
is  evidently  general,  if  it  do  not  particularly  refer  to  our  Lord's 
personal  ministry  on  earth,  before  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was 
introduced  by  His  ascension.  It  is  not  here  the  heir  sent  to 
receive  the  fruit  of  the  vineyard  ;  Jesus  is  "a  sower ;"  and  His 
sowing  is  hindered  and  opposed  by  the  world,  the  flesh,  and  the 
devil,  as  we  find  in  the  explanation  (verses  19-22),  though  a  por- 
tion of  the  seed  takes  root  in  good  ground. 

The  three  public  comparisons  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
follow,— the  wheat  and  tare  field,  the  mustard  seed,  and  the 
leaven.  The  sower  here  is  still  the  Son  of  man  ;  but  it  is  His 
work  from  heaven  (just  as  in  j\Iark  xvi.  20  ;  Ephes.  ii.  17).  It 
is  the  kingdom  of  Christ  when  rejected  by  the  Jews  ;  of  Christ 
absent,  not  present  in  visible  power  and  glory.  It  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  on  earth,  entrusted  to  servants,  who,  alas !  are 
soon  asleep,  and  the  devil  sows  his  wicked  children  in  the  midst  of 


the  true  cTiildren  of  the  kingdom.  The  general  teaching  then  is, 
that  the  new  dispensation,  as  far  as  man's  responsibility  was  con- 
cerned, would  see  ruin  introduced  by  the  enemy,  which  nothing 
could  remedy  but  the  judgment  executed  at  the  end  of  the  age. 
But  this  is  not  all.  Christendom  would  grow  from  a  diminutive 
beginning  into  a  "  tree,"  emblematic  of  a  towering  earthly  power, 
which  would  even  shelter  the  instruments  of  Satan  (compare 
verses  4  and  19  with  32).  Nor  this  only  :  for  a  system  of  doctrine, 
nominally  at  least  Christian,  should  spread  over  a  certain  defined 
mass,  till  the  whole  was  leavened.  Whether  this  mixture,  this 
worldly  aggrandisement,  this  propagation  of  (not  life  or  truth,  but) 
profession,  such  as  it  was,  were  of  the  Lord  or  His  enemy,  must  be 
gathered  not  merely  from  hints  here,  but  from  Scripture  generally. 
Then,  upon  the  dismission  of  the  multitude,  the  Lord 
explains  the  chief  of  the  first  three  similitudes  of  the  kingdom, 
and  adds  three  more,  which  develope  not  its  external  appearances, 
but  its  internal  aspects  to  the  spiritual  man.  Treasure  hid  in 
the  field,  the  pear],  and  the  drag-net,  comprehend  tliese  further 
instructions.  Christ  buys  the  field  for  the  sake  of  the  treasure. 
His  own  that  He  loved  in  the  world.  This,  nevertheless,  did 
not  fully  tell  out  either  His  love  or  their  beauty  in  His  eyes. 
Therefore,  as  it  seems  to  me,  the  parable  of  the  pearl  follows, — 
"  one  pearl  of  great  price,"  the  unity  and  the  peerless  charms  of 
that  object  in  the  Lord's  eyes,  for  which  He  gave  up  "  all  that  He 
had,"  as  Messiah,  here  below  ;  yea,  life  itself.  The  net  evidently 
presents  the  closing  circumstances  of  the  kingdom,  as  to  which  I 
would  briefly  call  attention  to  two  facts  often  confounded,  that  the 
fishermen  gather  the  good  into  vessels,  casting  the  bad  away,  while 
the  angels  at  the  consummation  sever  the  wicked  from  among 
the  just.  Our  part  is  to  take  forth  the  precious  from  the  vile  ; 
theirs  will  be  to  sej)arate  the  vile  from  the  precious.  Grace 
in  man  occupies  itself  with  "the  good."  It  will  be  the  judicial 
task  of  the  angels  to  deal  with  the  wicked,  and  to  leave  '*  the 
just"  as  the  nucleus  for  the  Lord's  glory  in  the  millennial  earth. 



Hebrews  iii. — It  is  of  no  small  moment  to  bear  iu  mind 
that,  while  the  "heavenly  calling,"  as  a  developed  system, 
depends  on  the  ascension  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  into  heaven, 
the  faith  of  Old  Testament  believers  was  far  in  advance  of  their 
calling  and  circumstances.  Thus,  the  Lord  called  Abram  from 
his  country  and  kindred  and  father's  house  to  a  land  that  He 
would  show  him  ;  and  it  was  certainly  by  faith  that  he  obeyed 
and  went  out,  not  knowing  whither  he  went.  But  Heb.  xi.  9 
shows  us  the  further  action  of  faith  ;  for  when  he  got  to  the 
land  he  sojourned  in  it  as  in  a  strange  country,  because  a  ray 
of  the  distant  heavenly  glory  had  dawned  on  his  soul.  "He 
looked  for  a  city  which  hath  foundations,"  etc.  Thus  he  and 
the  other  patriarchs  died,  as  they  lived,  in  faith,  not  in  actual 
possession.  Nevertheless,  such  strangership  as  this  neither 
amounts  to  nor  implies  the  "  heavenly  calling."  Doubtless,  the 
"  heavenly  calling "  now  produces  and  enjoins  strangership 
also  ;  but  tliis  in  no  way  proves  that  itself  was  published  and 
enjoyed  of  old. 

For  the  "  heavenly  calling,"  brought  before  us  in  Hebrews, 
grew  out  of  the  position  of  the  Lord  as  having  appeared,  and 
when  He  had  by  Himself  purged  our  sins,  as  having  sat  down 
on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high.  Hence  the  earthly 
tabernacle  and  the  rest  in  the  land,  and  the  Levitical  priesthood 
and  sacrifices  entirely  disappear,  for  the  partakers  of  the 
heavenly  calling  who  are  addressed  in  the  epistle.  This  state 
of  things  was  not  true  either  of  the  fathers  or  the  children  of 
Israel.  Their  hope  was  intimately  bound  up  with  the  land  (no 
doubt,  under  the  Messiah  and  a  glorified  condition,  but  still 
their  land  and  people  as  the  medium  of  blessing  for  all  others) ; 
but  the  "  heavenly  calling  "  was  not  revealed,  nor  could  be  till 
He  came  whose  rejection  led  to  it,  and  whose  redemption  and 
consequent  glorification  in   heaven  became  its  basis.     Hence 


Abram  had  his  earthly  altar.  Hence  he  sacrificed,  as  did  his 
descendants,  in  due  season,  of  the  flock,  or  the  herd,  or  the 
appointed  clean  birds.  Then  comes  the  worldly  sanctuary  and 
its  most  instructive  furniture  and  rites,  that  spoke  of  better 
things  looming  in  the  future.  Nobody  that  I  know  disputes 
that  individual  saints  saw  beyond  these  shadows,  dimly  per- 
haps but  really,  to  a  coming  Saviour  and  a  heavenly  country. 
Still  the  land  to  which  the  patriarchs  were  called  was  an  earthly 
land,  and  the  entire  polity  of  Israel  was  that  of  a  nation 
governed  under  the  eye  of  a  God  who  displayed  Himself  on 
earth  in  their  midst — in  contrast  with  "  the  heavenly  calling," 
of  which  not  the  less  it  furnished  striking  types,  mutatis 
mutandis.  Accordingly,  in  Heb.  xi.,  after  having  traced  the 
precious  individual  traits  of  the  Spirit  in  the  Old  Testament  saints, 
not  only  from  Abraham  but  from  Abel  downwards,  we  are  guarded 
against  the  error  that  would  merge  all  in  one  lump,  by  the  inci- 
dental statement  of  the  last  verse.  (See  also  chap.  xii.  23.) 
The  elders  have  not  received  the  promise  ;  they  are  waiting  till 
the  resurrection  for  that.  Meanwhile  God  has  provided  unfore- 
seen some  better  thing  for  us.  He  has  given  us  not  promise 
only  but  accomplishment  in  Christ.  He  has  made  us  worship- 
pers once  purged,  having  no  more  conscience  of  sins.  He  calls 
us  boldly  to  enter  into  the  holiest  by  a  new  and  living  way 
consecrated  for  us.  None  of  these  things  could  be  so  predicated 
of  them,  and  yet  these  things  are  but  a  part  of  the  heavenly 
calling.  Truly,  then,  has  God  provided  some  better  thing  for 
us,  even  if  we  only  look  at  what  is  now  made  known  through 
the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from  heaven.  It  is  also  true  that 
they  without  us  shall  not  be  made  perfect.  They  and  we  shall 
enter  on  our  respective  portion  in  resurrection  glory  at  the 
coming  of  Christ.  Meanwhile  we  have  no  earthly  calling, 
nothing  but  an  heavenly  one. 

So  far  is  it  from  being  true  that  the  early  ecclesiastical 
writers  erred  by   distinguishing  too  sharply  between  the  dis- 


pensations,  that  their  main  characteristic  is  Judaising  the 
church  by  denying  the  real  differences.  Jerome  did  this  no 
less  than  others,  even  to  the  confounding  of  Christ's  ministiy 
with  Jewish  priesthood.      


If  certain  views  as  to  what  "  the  church  "  consists  of  are  asked 
to  be  clearly  stated,  I  cannot  better  fulfil  this  request  than  by 
giving  the  following  extracts  from  a  writer  deeply  versed  in 
these  subjects  : — ■ 

The  Word  of  God  presents  to  us  a  charcli  formed  on  earth,  by  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  come  down  from  heaven  when  the  Son  of  God  sat 
down  there  in  glory,  having  accomplished  the  work  of  redemption.  This 
church  is  one  with  its  Head  ;  it  is  the  body  whereof  Christ,  ascended  on 
high  and  seated  on  the  right  hand  of  God,  is  the  Head.  (Eph.  i.  20-23  ; 
ii.  14-22  ;  iii.  5-6  ;  iv.  4-16  ;   1  Cor.  xii.   12,  13  ;  John  xii.  32,  xi.  52.) 

Tlie  same  Spirit,  who,  by  the  means  of  those  whom  God  chose, 

had  called  sinners  and  communicated  life  to  them,  has  also  united  them  in 
one  body,  whose  Head  is  the  glorified  Christ,  and  of  which  the  Spirit 
Himself  is  the  bond  with  Christ,   and  in   which  He  serves  as  the  bond 

between  the   members  one  with   another The  church,  then,  is  a 

body  subsisting  in  unity  here  below,  formed  by  the  pcwer  of  God,  who 
gathers  His  children  in  union  with  Christ  its  Head  ;  a  body  which  derives 
its  existence  and  unity  from  the  work  and  jiresence  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
come  down  from  heaven  as  the  consequence  of  the  ascension  of  Jesus. 

What  is  described  in  Epliesians,  and  defined  as  the  church, 

is  a  state  of  things  impossible  to  exist  before  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Christ  as  its  basis,  and  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  its  formative  aud 
maintaining  power.  Any  definition  we  could  give  of  it,  according  to 
Ephesians,  supposes  these  two  things.  The  Spirit  of  God,  there,  tieats 
Jews  and  Gentiles  as  alike  children  of  wrath,  speaks  of  the  middle  wall  of 
partition  broken  down  by  the  cross  of  Jesus,  the  actual  exaltation  of  Jesus 
above  all  principality  and  power,  and  us  raised  and  exalted  with  Him  ; 
and  both  Jew  and  Gentile  reconciled  in  one  new  man,  in  one  body  by  the 
cross,  and  builded  together  for  an  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit  ; 
so  that  there  is  one  body  and  one  Spirit.  It  is  declared,  consequently,  that 
"  now  unto  principalities  and  powers  in  heavenly  places  is  made  known  by 

the  Church   the  manifold  wisdom  of  God." There  are  two  great 

trutlis  dependent  on  this  doctrine  :  the  church  united  to   Christ   in  glory 


accomplished  hereafter  ;  and  meanwhile,  as  far  as  existing  or  developed  on 
earth,  the  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit.  This  is  its  calling,  of 
which  it  is  to  walk  worthy  ;  a  calling  clearly  impossible  from  its  very 
nature,  till  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  made  it  such  an  habitation. 

That  the  saints  will  all  be  gathered  into  everlasting  blessedness  as  partak- 
ing of  Christ  as  their  life,  and  redeemed  by  His  blood,  according  to  the 
counsels  of  God,  and  conformed  to  the  image  of  His  Son,  is  owned.  They 
are  all 'redeemed  by  blood,  and  all  quickened  by  divine  life.  But  the 
doctrine  insisted  on  is  this  :  that,  Christ  having  broken  down  the  middle 
wall  of  partition  by  His  death,  and  ascended  up  on  high,  and  sat  down  on 
the  right  hand  of  God,  and  thus  presented  the  full  efficacy  of  His  work  in 
the  presence  of  God,  the  Holy  Ghost  has  come  down  and  united  believers  in 
one  body,  thus  united  to  Christ  as  one  body  ;  which  body  is  in  Scripture 
designated  the  Church,  or  assembly  of  God,  and  is  His  habitation  through  the 
Spirit.  In  this,  as  founded  on  the  risen  and  exalted  Saviour,  and  united  to 
Him,  as  seen  on  high,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek. 
Christ,  as  exalted,  is  entirely  above  these  distinctions  ;  Jew  or  Greek  are 
alike  brought  nigh,  as  having  been  children  of  wrath,  by  the  blood  of  that 
cross  by  which  the  middle  wall  of  partition  has  been  broken  down.  Hitherto 
God  had  saved  souls.  At  Pentecost  He  gathered  His  children  into  the 
assembly  on  earth  ;  He  added  daily  to  the  Church  such  as  should  be 
saved.  It  is  no  longer  salvation  merely,  nor  even  the  kingdom,  God 
begins  to  form  His  Church  here  below  (Acts  ii). 

To  make  the  Church  a  company  of  believing  Jews,  with  Gentiles 
added  to  them,  and  Abraham's  seed  their  proper  definition,  entirely  shuts 
out  this  divine  teaching,  because  the  position  given  to  the  Church  in 
Ephesians  entirely  precludes  their  being  looked  at  as  Jews  ;  and  the 
character  of  "  Abraham's  seed "  comes  in  merely  to  show  they  are  true 
heirs  of  promise,  because  they  are  Christ's,  who  is  the  seed  of  Abraham 
and  Heir  of  the  promises.  But,  most  clearly,  this  is  altogether  the  lower 
ground  on  which  to  speak  of  Christ,  in  comparison  with  His  glorious  exalta- 
tion at  the  right  hand  of  God,  on  which  the  Church  as  such  is  founded. 
....  No  one  can  read  the  Ephesians  attentively  without  seeing  that  the 
Church,  as  one  body  existing  on  earth,  though  heavenly  in  privilege  and 
character,  takes  its  place  consequent  on  the  work  of  the  cross,  the  exalta- 
tion of  Jesus  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  the  coming  down  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Hence  to  give  any  definition  of  the  Church  which  implies  its 
existence  (other  than  in  the  counsels  of  God),  which  speaks  of  its  existence 
on  earth  {e.g.  during  the  life  of  Christ  on  earth,  or  previous  to  His  exalta- 
tion and  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost),  denies  its  nature,  and  sets  aside 
its  character Those  who  compose  the  Church  have  other  relation- 


ships  besides.     They  are  children  of  Abraham But  these  latter 

characters  do  not  weaken  what  has  been  stated,  much  less  do  they  annul 

it 1  Cor.  xii.  describes  the  Church   ...  .as  one  body  on  earth. 

So  Eph.  i.  iv.  ;  Col.  i.  ii While  then  one  would  sympathise  with  the 

godly  dread  some  may  feel  at  anything  which  seems  to  affect  the  salvation 
of  all  saints  from  the  beginning,  and  the  electing  love  of  God  in  respect  of 
them,  it  is  well,  on  the  other  hand,  to  call  things  by  their  right,  i.e.  scrip- 
tural, names.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  infinitely  wiser  than  man,  and  our 
business  is  to  see,  follow,  and  admire  His  wisdom,  as  in  other  matters,  so 
here.  He  has  restricted  the  title  "Church  of  God,"  in  a  New  Testament 
sense,  to  those  who  are  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Such  is  a  brief  exposition  of  the  views  in  question,  which,  to 
my  mind,  carry  scriptural  proof  along  with  them.  But  what  1 
contend  is,  that  the  view  which  makes  the  church  of  God  em- 
brace believers  in  all  dispensations  is  wholly  devoid  of  such 
proof.  It  is  in  vain  to  reason,  against  the  plainest  and  fullest 
testimony  of  God's  word,  that  "all  saints  are  equally  and 
similarly  justified  by  faith  ....  alike  called  saints  ....  the 
names  of  all  written  in  one  book,  the  Book  of  Life."  These 
similarities,  which  are  not  denied,  are  by  no  means  inconsist- 
ent with  the  place  of  the  church  as  the  body  and  bride  of 
Christ.  But  when  it  is  pronounced  that  "  the  new  Covenant 
Church  "  (a  term  not  found  in  Scripture)  "  has  no  higher  place 
assigned  it  than  participating  in  the  blessings  of  faithful 
Abraham,"  the  entire  teaching  of  Scripture,  above  referred  to 
(in  Eph.,  Col.,  etc.)  is  set  aside.  It  really  then  becomes  a  question 
of  spiritual  intelligence,  if  not  worse.  This  objection  is  ignorance 
of  or  opposition  to  Scripture. 

As  to  Heb.  xii.  22,  23,  we  must  adopt  not  only  with  some  of 
the  best  critics,  but  with  the  most  ancient  versions,  as  the  Syriac, 
Vulgate,  etc.,  the  punctuation  xa/  fji.vpiuffiv,  ayy'ikm  rravriyvpsi, 
xui  iXKXrjfficc,  Tff.  X.  r.  X-  It  is  confessedly  required  by  the  struc- 
ture of  the  whole  portion  of  which  every  paragraph  is  commenced 
by  xai.  So  that  the  attempt  to  make  this  passage  show  "  the 
general  assembly  "  and  "  the  church  "  as  identical  is  a  failure. 


No  doubt  we  read  of  "  the  church  in  the  wilderness."  But  v/.-/,'/.rie!a. 
simply  means  an  "  assembly  "  or  "  congregation."  In  Acts  xix.  32, 
39,  41,  the  confused  meeting  of  the  Ephesians  cannot  mean  the 
church  of  God,  yet  it  is  called  n  v/.x}.r,(sia.  So  "  the  church  in  the 
wilderness"  ought  rather  to  have  been  "  the  assembly"  there.  It 
means,  iinquestionably,  not  the  church  of  God,  but  the  congre- 
gation of  Israel,  almost  all  of  whose  carcases  fell  in  the  wilder- 
ness, and  to  whom  God  sware  that  they  should  not  enter  into 
His  rest.  It  is  said  again :  "  Besides,  He  was  slain  from  the  found- 
ation of  the  world."  A  comparison  of  this  passage  (Rev.  xiii. 
8)  with  Eev.  xvii.  8,  where  the  same  persons  and  circumstances 
are  referred  to,  makes  it  evident  that  "  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world"  should  be  connected,  not  with  "  the  Lamb  slain," 
but  with  "  the  names  written  in  the  book  of  life."  It  is  thus 
plain  that  the  arguments,  whether  of  one  adversary  or  of 
another,  have  no  weight  when  examined.  And  yet  they  are 
among  the  principal  ones  against  the  view  which,  in  my  opinion, 
Scripture  so  plainly  sets  forth,  viz.  that  the  body  of  believers, 
gathered  from  the  day  of  Pentecost  until  the  time  wdien  Christ 
shall  come  to  take  His  heavenly  people  to  Himself,  has,  M'hile 
sharing  many  fundamental  blessings  with  all  the  redeemed,  a 
distinct  calling  and  privileges  of  its  own,  and  alone  has  the  title 
assigned  to  it  of  "  the  church  of  God"  or  Christ's  bodv. 

2  Timothy  i.  15. — Are  these  all  the  Asian  saints  absolutely,  or 
are  they  only  the  few  that  had  been  at  Eome,  and  had  shown  this 
cowardice  towards  St.  Paul, — that  they  had  failed  to  identify 
themselves  with  him,  and  his  testimony  and  circumstances  ? 
Clearly  the  latter  :  and  the  way  of  speaking  of  them  used  by  the 
apostle  (oi  iv  rfj  Waiof)  is  likely  due  to  the  fact  that  these  Asian 
Christians  were  home  again  in  Asia  when  Paul  wrote  to  Timothy 
about  their  neglect  of  him  when  tlicy  were  in  Rome  ;  and  that 
Timothy,  to  whom  he  wrote,  was  then  in  Asia  also. 


It  is  rather  too  wide  a  conclusion  to  come  to,  that  all  the 
Christians  in  Asia  had  turned  away  from  Paul.  The  fickleness 
of  the  Galatians  would  warrant  us  in  looking  for  a  good  deal 
of  turning  away  from  Paul  in  Asia  ;  but  this  passage  gives  no 
countenance  to  the  incredible  notion  that  the  whole  of  the 
Asian  saints  had  given  up  Paul,  The  fact  of  Phygellus  and 
Hermogenes  being  mentioned  as  two  of  them,  shows  that  they 
were  only  a  few.  And  again,  the  praise  of  .Onesiphorus  (an 
Asian),  in  the  same  connection,  for  seeking  him  out  very  dili- 
gently and  finding  him,  and  not  being  ashanied  of  his  chain, 
points  pretty  plainly  to  the  circumstances  of  the  apostle  as  the 
cause  of  their  repudiation  of  him,  and  that  the  scene  of  their  so 
doing  had  been  Pome.  He  says  in  effect  :  The  Asians  all 
shunned  me  when  here  ;  but  instead  of  being  ashamed  of  me,  or 
repudiating  me,  Onesiphorus  sought  me  out  with  more  than 
ordinary  diligence,  and  found  me.  2  Tim.  i.  8  shows  that  this 
was  the  purport  of  the  apostle's  meaning.  "  Be  not  thou  there- 
fore ashamed  of  the  testimony  of  our  Lord,  nor  of  me  His 
prisoner ;  but  be  thou  partaker  of  the  afflictions  of  the  gospel 
according  to  the  power  of  God." 


Exodus  xxiv.  11. — Does  this  mean,  as  some  make  it,  that 
they  enjoyed  a  feast  with  Jehovah  ?  "  Also  they  saw  God,  and 
did  eat  and  drink,"  means  nothing  more  than  this, — they  lived  ; 
they  were  not  struck  down  dead.  It  was  expected  that  no  one 
could  see  God  and  not  die.  "  Manoah  said  unto  his  wife,  We 
shall  surely  die,  because  we  have  seen  God"  (Judges  xiii.  22). 
"What  was  the  origin  of  this  thought?  The  conviction  that  man, 
as  he  is,  is  so  unfit  for  God's  presence,  that  to  see  God  must  be 
death  to  man.  The  death  and  resurrection  of  Him  who  became 
man  and  died  for  us  is  meant  to  deliver  the  believer  from  such 
a  feelincr.     He  is  indeed  dead  and  risen  with  Him. 



Heb.  IX. 
Ottawa,  America,  Oct.  2*7th,  1876. 
]\Iy  dear  Brother    ....    I  write  at  once  as  to  Heb.  ix.     A/a 
is  used  for  a  state  or  condition,  which  affects  the  principle  on  which 
we  act  or  receive  anything,  on  which  anything  takes  place.   Thus, 
Eom.  iv.  11,  ^/'  dx^rSvaTiag  ;  Eom.  ii.  27,  dia  y^d/Mfx^arog  xal  'Tre^irc/iric, 

So  it  is  in  Heb.  ix.  11.  As  to  'xa^ayivofj.ivos,  though  it  be  having 
come,  it  is  not  the  act  of  coming  £f%o/xa/,  but  being  present  in  or 
for  something  by  coming  ;  coming  into  a  certain  condition,  so 
that  He  is  there,  or  come  in  view  of  what  is  to  be  done  when 
arrived.  The  verb  in  the  sentence  is  ilan'^Oiv  i(pd'za^,  verse  12. 
He  had  taken  the  position  of  High  Priest  of  coming  good  things ; 
and  this  office  was  to  be  fulfilled,  not  in  the  present  earthly 
tabernacle,  but  in  a  greater  and  more  perfect  one.  The  taber- 
nacle is  not,  therefore,  I  think,  the  incarnation,  for  His  priesthood 
(save  the  fact  of  atonement)  was  not  on  earth  ;  it  is  exercised  in 
connection  with  heavenly  things,  though  tliere  securing  earthly 
ones  for  Israel.  -Tra^ayivo/uvog  is  entering  into  the  condition  of 
priesthood,  not  incarnation  or  glory,  and  that  is  connected  with 
the  heavenly  tabernacle.  The  fact  of  His  going  in  is  in  24  as  in 
12  ;  this  referring  to  eternal  redemption,  which  He  had  found; 
that,  to  the  fact  of  His  abiding  presence  before  God  there  for 
us  ;  but  in  both  tiai^xo/zai,  the  act  of  going  in,  not  vu^aym/j^ai, 
what  He  had  come  to  be  or  do,  the  condition  entered  into  or  in 
view.     I  do  not  consider  bid  al/jburoc,  or  rod  iBlou  a'i]u,a,roc  as  lustru- 


mental,  but  to  be  used  in  the  sense  already  referred  to.  The  end 
of  the  ages,  or  consummation  of  the  ages,  are  all  the  dealings  of 
God  with  man  to  test  his  general  condition.  In  this  general 
sense  the  state  of  innocence  comes  in  ;  but  the  proper  connec- 
tion is  what  is  after  the  fall,  yet  not  looking  at  man  as  lost,  but 
testing  his  state  and  whether  he  was  recoverable,  or  was  lost  and 
had  to  be  saved.  Without  law  ;  under  law  ;  God  manifested  in 
the  flesh,  were  the  great  features  of  this.  Hence  in  John  xii,  the 
Lord  says,  "  Now  is  the  judgment  of  this  world."  Though  there 
was  testimony,  there  were  no  religious  institutions  before  the 
flood,  unless  the  fact  of  sacrifices.  There  were  after  :  govern- 
ment, promises  to  Abraham,  showing  it  was  grace  to  one  sepa- 
rated from  an  idolatrous  world  and  head  of  a  new  race,  the  law, 
the  prophets,  and  at  last  the  Son  as  come,  not  as  offered.  Then 
God  laid  the  foundation  of  His  own  purposes  in  righteousness. 
The  difference  is  that  in  John  i.  29  it  is  the  sin  of  the,  world,  in 
Heb.  ix.  it  is  to  put  away  sin  more  generally.  Neither  will  have 
full  accomplishment  till  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth.  In 
this  last  passage  we  have  to  distinguish  between  it  and  bearing 
the  sins  of  many.  The  last  concerns  us,  and  purging  our  con- 
science. I  do  not  think  it  has  been  adequately  seen  how  all  good 
and  evil  has  been  brought  to  an  issue  in  the  cross — in  that 
place  of  sin  before  God,  that  is,  in  Christ  made  sin  (though  in 
the  last  words  it  is  for  us,  2  Cor.  v.  21).  We  have  the  abso- 
lute wickedness  of  man  and  enmity  against  God  in  goodness  ; 
'  the  complete  power  of  Satan,  "  your  hour  and  the  power  of  dark- 
ness ; "  the  prince  of  this  world  leading  all  men,  the  disciples 
having  fled ;  man  in  his  absolute  perfection,  in  M-hom  that 
prince  had  nothing,  but  there  was  perfect  love  to  the  Father  and 
perfect  obedience,  man  in  absolute  perfection,  and  that  as  made 
sin  before  God,  where  it  was  needed  for  God's  glory.  For  it  was 
where  He  was  made  sin  that  the  obedience  was  made  perfect, 
obedient  unto  death  ;  God  absolute  in  righteousness  against  sin, 
and  perfect  in  love  to  the  sinner.     This,  therefore,  is  the  finished 


and  so  immutable  ground  of  eternal  perfectness.  ATe  cannot  say 
as  to  the  result  sin  is  actually  put  away,  save  for  us  (2  Cor.  v.) 
who  by  the  Holy  Ghost  know  it ;  but  the  work  is  perfectly  done 
on  the  ground  of  which  there  will  be  a  new  heavens  and  a  new 
earth  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness.  We  must  not  confound 
"  sin"  and  "sins."  He  has  borne  the  sins  of  many  (they  never  can 
be  remembered  against  us)  ;  loved  and  washed  from  them  in  His 
own  blood  :  our  conscience,  once  purged,  is  made  clean  for  ever. 
But  sin  is  that  alienation  of  all  things,  and  first  of  all  of  our  hearts, 
from  God,  which  requires  reconciliation  of  things  in  heaven 
and  earth,  which  is  not  yet,  and  of  ourselves  which  is  ;  see  Col. 
i.  20,  21,  and  many  confirmatory  passages.  Christ  then  has  been 
manifested  for  the  total  abolition  of  sin  out  of  heaven  and  earth, 
defilement  and  alienation  gone,  besides  our  guilt  being  atoned 
for  and  our  sins  remitted  ;  but  both  are  by  His  sacrifice,  in 
which  God  withal  has  been  perfectly  glorified  in  all  that  He  is. 
The  result  is  not  yet  wholly  accomplished,  nor  will  be  fully  till 
the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth.  The  yMTayJivia  of  Phil,  are 
another  thing  ;  they  bow  but  are  not  reconciled,  I  say  this  to 
avoid  mistakes.  The  burnt-offering  alone  took  the  ground  of  sin, 
the  sin-offering  of  sins.  Eomans  also,  i.  17-v.  11,  treats  of  sins  ; 
V,  12-end  of  viii.  of  sin  only,  here  only  as  to  man  on  the  earth. 
(pi^iiv  is  as  to  sins,  6  a7^wi/  goes  on  to  sin.  Sins  are  borne,  sin  put 
away.  Of  course  our  sins  are  wholly  taken  away,  but  tliat  is 
"  our."  He  is  never  said  to  have  borne  the  sins  of  all  or  of  the 
world,  or  taken  them  away,  but  our  sins,  or  tbose  of  many  ;  but 
He  is  the  6  ahm  of  sin  out  of  the  universe,  the  taker-away  of  it, 
the  result  being  not  yet  accomplished,  ug  adirr/aiv  is  the  result 
proposed,  rid'iTTias  is  not  said.  The  work  is  done,  the  full  result 
not  yet  brouglit  about  ;  but  it  is  all  in  virtue  of  that,  though 
power  comes  in  to  make  it  good,  just  as  it  does  in  the  micro- 
cosm of  ourselves,  even  as  to  the  body  in  due  time. 

As  to  the  question  of  "covenant"  or  "  testament":  "cove- 
nant" is  always  right,  save  in  Heb.  ix.  16,  17.     Even  here  it 


has  been- contested;  but  it  seems  more  simple  to  take  it  as 
"  testament,"  an  observation  or  allusion  by  the  by,  haOr^-Kni  being 
in  Greek  covenant  or  testament  or  disposition.  The  voice  of 
roD  biadiij.ho\}  has  been  the  great  bone  of  contention  where  it  lias 
been  discussed  ;  translated,  if  covenant,  "  the  appointed  "  [sacri- 
fice]. But  this  has  seemed  to  me  forced.  Some  have  even  made 
Gal.  iii.  15,  16  "testament,"  but  this,  I  judge,  is  entirely  wrong. 


Boston,  U.S.,  January  1877. 
]\Iy  dear  Brother — I  have  read  the  Losepenningen  of  Dr.  Wal- 
denstrom. I  had  previously  read  his  Latin  thesis  on  the  Lutheran 
symbolical  books.  There  he  was  all  right  in  combating  the 
common  error  that  Christ's  work  changed  God's  mind,  and  that 
God  was  then  but  a  Judge,  and  practically  that  love  was  in  Christ, 
and  only  judgment  in  God,  as  if  the  work  of  Christ  procured 
His  love.  I  have  very  often  insisted  on  the  truth  as  to  this. 
You  have  both  sides  in  John  iii.  14,  15.  But  he  drops  out  "  the 
Son  of  MAN  must,"  and  holds  only  that  "  God  gave  His  Son."  And 
thus  it  is  a  very  wrong  production.  Still  the  error  that  is  in  it 
arises  from  having  got  hold  of  the  love,  and  so  getting  onesided. 
The  interpretation  of  the  passage  is  all  wrong,  but  that  is  not  so 
material ;  but  he  confounds  purchasing  and  redemption.  If  what 
he  says  means  anything,  all  sins  of  all  men  are  put  away. 

Dr.  W.  is  also  careless  in  his  use  of  Scripture.  He  contradicts 
himself;  for  though  sins  are  blotted  out  the  curse  abides  on 
sinners  continually.  Wrath  and  the  curse  remain  for  those  who 
are  sinners,  yet  there  was  no  wrath  in  God  !  The  justified  are 
taken  from  under  the  curse  ;  but  they  had  been  under  it  then 
it  appears,  and,  in  their  sins,  were  under  the  wrath  of  God  and 
condemnation.  He  mixes  up  all  this  confusion  and  contradiction 
with  just  refutation  of  errors.  And  note.  What  did  Christ  suffer 
and  be  forsaken  of  God  for  ?    It  is  all  well  to  say  God's  love  gave 


Him,  and  that  was  the  source  of  all.  No  doubt.  But  why  did 
Christ  suffer  as  He  did  ?  why  had  He  the  stripes  ?  He  is  a  pro- 
pitiation, an  iXae/Mog,  He  suffered  iXdcKsffdai.  God  had  not  to  be 
reconciled,  but  His  righteous  holy  nature  required  the  sin  to  be 
put  away.  Then  he  uses  "we"  and  "us"  in  the  mouth  of  believers, 
as  if  it  was  all  the  world.  His  doctrine  as  to  not  living  under 
law  and  experience  is  dangerous.  I  resist  looking  to  experience 
as  much  as  he  does  ;  but,  in  citing  the  lost  sheep  and  the  father 
of  the  prodigal,  he  has  dropped  the  return  of  the  prodigal,  so 
carefully  brought  out  in  detail  by  the  Lord  to  make  the 
difference  between  conversion  and  salvation  clear.  I  reject 
utterly  self-examination  for  peace  ;  but  a  soul  will  have  to  know 
itself — not  merely  its  sins  forgiven,  but  that  "  in  me,  that  is  in 
my  flesh,  dwelleth  no  good  thing."  He  resists  reconciling  God,  in 
which  he  is  right.  But  he  has  neglected  one  side  of  Scripture 
truth ;  has  quoted  Scripture  without  heed ;  and  contradicts  him- 
self It  is  confusion  of  redemption  and  purchase  that  has  made 
all  his  doctrine  wrong.  Christ  is  an  dvrlXvr^ov  hmo  iravruv.  but 
that  which  is  the  strongest  statement  is  very  different  from 
dmXvT^cueig.  It  is  a  pity  he  could  not  be  set  straight,  for  the 
point  of  departure  of  his  mind  is  just :  but  he  has  followed  it 
out  hastily,  not  weighing  Scripture.  He  has  lost  the  /Xaa/xog  side 
of  the  work,  and  this  is  dangerous.  It  has  not  gone  to  denying 
that  the  sins  had  to  be  put  away,  and  therefore  has  thrown  all 
his  teaching  into  confusion.  The  blood  of  the  goat  was  pre- 
sented to  God  on  the'  mercy-seat,  and  Christ  is  entered  in  not 
without  blood ;  why  if  it  M'ere  not  needed  to  }Xda-/.iadai  rdg 
dfj^a^riag  rou  Xaou  1  Why  was  it  presented  to  God  ?  Not  surely  to 
change  His  mind  or  make  Him  love  (a  horrid  thought),  but 
needed  for  His  righteousness  and  holy  nature.  It  became  Him 
in  bringing  many  sons  to  glory.  So  He  says  to  Israel,  When  / 
see  the  blood,  I  will  pass  over.  There  is  wrath  and  the  curse 
he  admits — why?  and  what  met  it  so  that  it  should  not  be 
executed  on  us?      Hence   He  always  confounds  God  and  the 


Father,  makinfj  us  all  His  children,  "  God  so  loved  the  world."  It 
is  never  said  "  the  Father  "  loved  the  world.  The  Father  is  a  name 
of  relationship  with  His  children,  not  with  the  world.  Dr.  W. 
admits  they  are  not  all  saved.  The  question  is  not,  Did  Christ 
undertake  a  partial  restoration?  but.  Did  He  undertake  the 
restoration  of  all?  He  died  for  all,  I  believe,  but  that  is  a 
very  different  thing.  Here  you  have  purchase  and  redemption 
as  the  same,  and  their  perfect  restoration  the  same  as  He  under- 
took. All  this  is  confusion  and  mist.  He  is  wrong  even  in 
saying  purchase  is  always  spoken  of  all.  In  1  Cor.  vi.  20  and 
vii.  23  it  is  not  so  ;  and  2  Peter  ii.  1  is  quite  another  thought, 
and  so  is  Matt.  xiii.  44,  where  the  field  is  clearly  bought  to 
have  the  treasure.  There  are  two  other  cases  in  Eev.  where 
it  is  distinctly  not  all,  and  rrsBiTroiov/ubai,  where  the  same  is  true. 
I  cannot  find  one  passage  where  it  is  all.  To  state  that  it  is 
so  always  is  not  careful. 

Dear  Brother — I  have  been  interested  just  lately  by  what 
is  written  in  Eph.  iv.  30,  v.  1-3,  and  send  you  a  few  thoughts 
on  it.  A  Christian  in  apostolic  days  was  sealed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  God,  and  he  knew  it.  He  was  forgiven  of  God,  and 
he  was  conscious  of  it.  He  shared  in  the  love  of  Christ,  and 
was  sensible  of  it.  He  was  a  saint  of  God,  and  was  reminded 
of  it.  Very  great  were  these  favours,  and  for  the  most  part 
very  wonderful ;  yet  each  of  them  could  furnish  ground  on  which 
to  base  most  practical  exhortations  for  every-day  life.  Sealed 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  the  Christian  was  not  to  grieve  Him. 
Forgiven  of  God  in  Christ,  they  were  to  forgive  one  another. 
Loved  by  Christ,  they  were  to  walk  in  love.  As  saints,  they 
were  to  refrain  even  from  the  naming  among  themselves  of 
those  unclean  ways  by  which  men  are  so  often  defiled.  Their  be- 
ing thus  exhorted  showed  into  what,  unless  watcliful,  they  might 
fall.    The  terms,  however,  in  which  they  were  addressed,  proved 



that  they  never  could  be  lost.     For  God  had  forgiven  them,  and 
they  were  sealed  by  the  Spirit  unto  the  day  of  redemption. 


What  is  the  exact  meaning  of  "  first-born  of  every  creature," 

rrpuroToxog  craffTjj  xriciug    Col.  i.  15? 

In  a  new  translation  it  is  said,  "  it  is  not  each  individual  as 
such,  but  of  everything  called  xTieig  in  its  nature  (compare  Heb. 
ix.  11).  'Creature'  individually  is  xr/V/ia."  This  settles  it  as 
against  the  querist  if  that  passage  had  been  in  his  mind. 

But  Meyer  says  [on  T^uroroxo;  -Trasra  xr/asug]  after  the  relation 
of  Christ  to  God,  now  follows  His  relation  to  ivhat  is  created,  in  an 
apologetic  interest  of  opposition  to  the  Gnostic  false  teachers.  .  . 
The  false  teachers  denied  to  Christ  the  supreme  unique  rank  in 
the  order  of  spirits.  But  He  is  first-horn  of  every  creature,  that 
is,  born  before  every  creature — having  come  to  personal  existence, 
entered  upon  subsistent  being,  ere  yet  anything  created  was  extant 
(Rom.  i.  25,  viii.  39  ;  Heb.  iv.  13).  Analogous,  but  not  equi- 
valent, is  Prov.  viii.  22,/. 

In  a  note  as  against  Hoffmann  he  says  that  this  expression 
"posits  the  origin  of  Christ  (as  Xoyog  Tr^opoomoi)  in  His  temporal 
relation  to  the  creature  ;  and  this  point  is  tlie  more  purely  to 
be  adhered  to,  seeing  that  Christ  Himself  does  not  belong  to  the 
category  of  the  xrlaig.". 

Then,  in  the  text,  he  proceeds — "  It  is  to  be  observed  that 
this  predicate  [first-born]  also  belongs  to  the  eiitire  Christ, 
inasmuch  as  by  His  exaltation  His  entire  person  is  raised  to  that 
state  in  which  He,  as  to  His  divine  nature,  liad  already  existed 
before  the  creation  of  tlie  world,"  etc.  "  The  mode  in  which  he 
(Paul)  conceived  of  the  personal  pre-existence  of  Christ  before 
the  world,  as  regards  (timeless)  origin,  is  not  defined  by  the 
figurative  ^^or&Voxos  more  precisely  than  as  procession  from  the 


Divine-  nature,  whereby  the  pre-mundane  Christ  became  sub- 
sistent,  h  ^o^f  ^  ©sou  and  lea  ©sp  (Phil.  ii.  6). 

The  genitive  'xaam  ^rioiujg,  moreover,  is  not  the  partitive 
genitive  (although  De  Wette  stiU,  with  Usteri,  Reuss,  and  Baur, 
holds  this  to  be  indubitable),  because  the  anarthrous  ^a<ra  xrisig 
does  not  mean  the  whole  creation,  or  everything  ivhich  is  created 
(Hoffmann),  and  consequently  cannot  affirm  the  category  or 
collective  ichole  to  which  Christ  belongs  as  its  first-born  in- 
dividual (it  means  every  creature:  compare  on  frasa  oly.ohoM, 
Eph.  ii.  21)  ;  but  it  is  the  genitive  of  comparison,  corresponding 
to  the  superlative  expression,  'Hhe  first-lorn  in  comparison  with 
every  creature"  that  is,  horn  earlier  than  every  creature. 

In  a  note  he  says  against  Hoffmann—"  The  interpretation 
of  H.  is  incorrect,  because  there  would  thereby  be  necessarily 
affirmed  a  homogeneous  relation  of  origin  for  Christ  and  all  the 
xr/V/s."  "  H.  opines  that  cracrjjg  xr/ffjw;  is  simply  genitive  of,  '  of 
the  definition  of  relation  '  {e.g., '  in  relation  to  aU  that  is  created, 
Christ  occupies  the  position  which  a  first-born  has  towards  the 
household  of  his  father  ')•"  "  But  this  "  (continues  Meyer)  "  ex- 
plains nothing,  because  the  question  remains.  What  relation  is 
meant  to  be  defined  by  the  genitive?  The  T^ororoKog  'xaem 
xrieiug  is  not  at  all  to  be  got  over  so  easily  as  it  is  by  Hoffmann, 
namely,  with  a  grammatically  erroneous  explanation  of  the 
anarthrous  ^a(ra  xrlsig,  and  with  appeal  to  Ps.  Ixxxix.  27  (where 
in  fact,  cr^soroVoxos  stands  without  genitive,  and  1133  in  the  sense  of 
the  first  rank." 

"  The  genitive  here  is  to  be  taken  quite  as  the  comparative 
genitive  with  -TPurog  (see  on  John  i.  15,  etc.)  The  element  of 
comparison  is  the  relation  of  time  {'^r^h  roD  rhv  xoe/iov  vvai,  Jolm 
xvii.  5),  and  that  in  respect  of  origin.  But  because  the  latter  in 
the  case  of  every  xrla,;  is  different  from  what  it  is  in  the  case  of 
Christ  ....  the  term  rrpurCroxog  is  chosen,  wliich,  in  com- 
parison as  to  the  time  of  origin,  points  to  the  peculiar  nature  of 
the  origmation  in  the  case  of  Christ,  namely,  that  He  was  not 


created  by  God  like  the  other  beings  in  whom  this  is  implied  in 
the  designation  -/.Tioii,  but  &or?i,  having  come  forth  homogeneous 
from  the  nature  of  God. 

"  And  by  this  is  expressed,  not  a  relation  homogeneous  with 
the  xr/rf/s  (Holtzmann),  a  relation  kindred  to  the  world,  but  that 
which  is  absolutely  exalted  above  the  world,  and  unique.  .  .  . 

"At  variance,  therefore,  with  the  words  is  the  Arian  interpret- 
ation that  Christ  is  designated  as  the  first  creature.  With  this 
view  the  sequel  also  conflicts,  which  describes  Christ  as  the 
accomplisher  and  aim  of  creation  ;  hence  in  His  case  a  mode  of 
origin  higher  and  different  from  the  heing  created  must  be  pre-sup- 
posed,  which  is,  in  fact,  characteristically  indicated  in  the  pur- 
posely-chosen word  ■-^uTorcy.o;.  ...  If  the  creation  of  all  things 
took  place  in  Christ,  it  is  evident  that  He  must  stand  Icfore  the 
series  of  created  things,  and  be  rr^uroroxog  •TrdoTi;  xrlasug." 

So  far  Meyer,  the  best  of  all*the  German  critics  of  the  Greek 
text.     What  say  you  to  it  ? 

Do  you  think  E/V-cof  and  -Trouroroxos  refer  to  Christ  in  His 
divine  nature,  or  in  incarnation  ? 

See  also  Dr.  J.  B.  Lightfoot's  "  Colossians,"  pp.  210-21G,  for 
an  historical  sketch  of  the  interpretation.  Augustine  and 
Pelagius,  he  says,  held  both  to  be  expressions  of  the  Incarnate 
Christ.  The  "  Fathers "  did  so  generally  to  meet  the  Arians. 
And  Marcellus  went  into  error,  making  it  all  the  moral  crea- 
tion, and  applying  the  term  to  the  whole  context. 

Dr.  Lightfoot's  notes  are  copious,  and  his  discussion  contains 
much  valuable  information ;  but  he  does  not  very  distinctly  tell 
us  what  he  thinks,  though  I  gather  that  he  regards  both  expres- 
sions of  Christ's  divine  nature. 

Olsiiausen  says  :  "  In  verses  15-17  Christ  is  delineated 
without  reference  to  His  incarnation."  Again  :  "  He  (the  Son 
of  God)  must  have  been  born  of  the  substance  of  the  Father 
before  all  the  creation, /o?-  all  things  are  created  in  Him." 

Bp.  Ellicott  will  have  it  everything  that  is  created,  not  the 


whole  creation,  "  begotten,  and  that  antecedently  to  everything 
that  was  created."  "  He  disdains  not  to  institute  a  temporal 
comparison  between  His  own  generation  from  eternity  and  their 
creation  in  time."  He  admits  in  a  very  secondary  and  inferential 
sense  priority  in  dignity,  "  the  genitive  of  the  point  of  view" 

Alford  suggests  that  the  safe  method  is  to  combine  the  two 
ideas  of  priority  and  dignity — "  that  Christ  was  not  only  first- 
born of  His  mother  in  the  world,  but  first-begotten  of  His 
Father  before  the  worlds,  and  that  He  holds  the  rank,  as  com- 
pared with  every  created  thing,  of  first-born  in  dignity.  For, 
etc.,  V.  16,  where  this  assertion  is  justified." 

TnEODORET  :  "  Not  as  having  creation  for  a  sister,  but  as 
begotten  before  all  creation." 

Chrysostom  :  "  Not  significant  of  glory  and  honour,  but 
only  of  time." 

Braune  :  "  Since  Taff?)?  denotes  every  kind  of  creature,  angels 
and.  men,  Christ  existed  before  all.  He  does  not  begin  the  series 
of  a  category  as  '  first-begotten  of  the  dead '  (Eev.  i.  5)  '  among 
many  brethren '  (Eom.  viii.  29),  but  He  is  antecedent,  condition- 
ing the  creation." 

This  is  the  reply  which  the  sending  of  the  foregoing  has 
elicited  from  a  friend  : — 

"  I  believe  that  Meyer  errs  in  making  tawi-oVoxo;  expressive 
of  priority  in  time,  and  is  inconsistent  in  applying  it  to  the  Lord 
before  He  became  a  man.  His  language  that  He  came  to 
personal  existence  before  creation,  what  does  it  mean  ?  Put  it 
back  as  far  as  you  like,  His  hecoming  a  person  is  to  me  a  strange 
proof  of  Meyer's  own  soundness  in  the  faith  ;  but  it  proves  the 
false  interpretation.  The  man  he  most  opposes,  Hoffmann,  seems 
nearer  the  truth  in  this  matter. 

'  John  L  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  Word  was  God,  and  had 
a  personal  existence  as  the  Word  with  God  before  time  began, 
that  is,  from  all  eternity.     In  time  He  became  man  ;   in  time 


He  was  to  be  (as  I  understand  it)  both  first-born  of  all  creation 
{i.e.  of  everything  to  be  designated  creature),  and  first-born  from 
the  dead,  but  the  former  as  incarnate,  a